This video demonstrates how a judge manages a defendant exercising their Sixth Amendment right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, while navigating complex constitutional arguments about jurisdiction, discovery rights, and due process. The judge maintains courtroom order by setting time limits, explaining procedural requirements, and allowing the public defender's office to serve as 'of counsel' for guidance. The case illustrates how courts balance defendants' constitutional rights with the need to maintain orderly proceedings and ensure fair trial protections.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Judge Patiently Handles Wild Constitutional Arguments in CourtAdded:
This is preposterous. This is nonsense. That he observed me driving.
That's a lie.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
False in one thing, false in all. I'm not contracting with this.
My constitutional rights are broken.
Andrew Leffers This This is All right, this is case number 26819FY.
Um we are here for a probable cause conference.
We're also here Mr. Champion has filed >> [clears throat] >> uh documents on behalf of Mr. Leffers.
One of those is an affidavit of non-acceptance of court-appointed counsel, assertion of constitutional rights, and demand for self-representation.
The other is affidavit of notice and acknowledgement and acceptance of oath of public official.
Um the other is uh respondent's motion to set aside a default judgment.
Before we begin today, I'm going to remind everybody of the courtroom and local administrative orders regarding uh the court uh decorum and procedure.
I'm going to ask if anybody is recording these proceedings that they please shut off their phones. I'm also going to ask that any phone be placed in a pocket or purse in such a way as it cannot be seen uh from the courtroom. If you could stick that in your side pocket, sir, I'd appreciate it. Appearances counsel.
>> [sighs and gasps] >> Lisa Doll for the people. Robert Hurtel for the defender's office, Your Honor.
Mr. Champion was in Missaukee this morning. I'm sure the court also took note that what we uh from the defenders office filed we included a qualifier it not necessarily being endorsed by the public defenders office. I wanted to make sure you stress that. Correct. I understand that. So Mr. Lafferty, I know I think you've been in front of me twice and I think you were in front of Judge Ransom last time.
I know your position regarding the authority of the court. To keep matters moving though, I I have to set a time limit as to how long I'm going to allow you to address the court. Hold that thought.
I know you you always have a concern and rightly so as to whether or not we're on the record. My concern is is from where you're standing, I'm not sure the microphones are able to pick you up well enough to get an accurate record and the court reporters telling me that. So what I'm willing to do for purposes of this case is I'm going to put on notice that allowing you to pass behind the bar and enter into the well, I'm not agreeing to take jurisdiction over you. I'm allowing you to come forward so that you can make the appropriate record that you wish because my concern is even if you project your voice sometimes those microphone the microphones are just these little triangular things on the table so they my concern is they're not going to pick you up. So I would prefer that you come in and sit next to counsel's table. I don't exercise jurisdiction over you by doing that if you choose to come forward.
All right, so thank you.
>> All right. If you can come up and have a seat next to Mr. Hartel.
Well, I'll give you my desktop says 12:05. It looks like the wall clocks say 12:09 and it looks like they're synced up with each other so go ahead.
No disrespect intended. Are we on the public record, sir? We are.
And as redundant as it might be just please continue to be honorable.
Your honor, I am I am still legal's lawful representative of the estate in question. I want it on the record. Y'all don't have jurisdiction.
I I voluntarily appear in this court today on special appearance.
I move the court to take judicial notice of the Michigan Constitution as ratified without subsequent amendments and the US Constitution and your oath to them, Your Honor. What say you?
Well, as I said before, I acknowledge I took an oath to uphold the Constitutions.
Thank you, sir.
Moving forward, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 clearly states that when a state is a party to the case involving a citizen of this that state, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, which makes these proceedings improper, violate the Constitution.
It's the wrong venue.
The request that I've supplied, which I have to amend because [clears throat] now there are extra things added and um Mr. Champion also and RJ at the defender's office refused to allow us evidence. So, I'm still being denied due process.
Your Honor, for the record, I am making a clear and unequivocal demand to represent myself in this matter. I am invoking my Sixth Amendment right as recognized by the United States Supreme Court of Faretta versus California, 422 US 806, 1975.
And we have right up on the Wilk Wilkins Wilkinsons Wiggins What? McCluskey McCluskey, that's right.
The McClaskey and Wiggins and implied change in law. I do not accept accept standby counsel, which affirms my right to proceed without counsel when the waiver is made knowingly and into the intelligently. I respectfully decline any court-appointed attorney. You all are friends. You all know each other.
You most recently took this seat, sir.
I made friends with a lot of my co-workers in the past.
I'm not going to get a fair trial here.
Due process is being denied on that as well.
I overstand the nature of the charges against me, the penalty, and the risk involved in self-representation.
I am making this decision knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. I ask the court to conduct any required inquiry to establish that my waiver of counsel is valid, and to allow me to proceed pro se.
Your Honor, I am making a clear and unequivocal demand to proceed [clears throat] pro se under Faretta. I am not asking for different counsel. I am waiving counsel entirely.
They are impeding upon my due right due process. They Jockins didn't give me anything that I asked for. They They got upset at me, cussed at me, told me to mind my own business, look over this.
Jurisdiction is broken.
Due process is broken. I'm not being treated fairly.
That is my stance.
You want to indict me on a grand jury trial, please do so.
Otherwise, this needs to be dismissed >> [clears throat] >> with prejudice or full exoneration.
Or pull the trigger. Let me go up there.
I'll talk to them.
It's been a pleasure meeting you. Well, um well, it's been a pleasure meeting you, too. What When you say go up and talk to them, who do you Who do you mean?
>> Supreme Court. Okay. All right. On a federal indictment, which has a national >> [clears throat] >> We're in different jurisdictions, sir.
So, um I understand you want to represent yourself. I I have a question couple questions in that regard.
So, first of all, by representing yourself, do you believe that you can conform to the rules of the court, the published court rules? With that, finding out other things, most recently about my hometown, the past two judges have been removed by the tenure council.
Um so, Canon 1 through 5 and D, it also expresses that you're the guard.
Prosecutor's the guard.
Lawyers are guardians of our liberties and the constitutional right. So, when someone pro se makes a mistake, and even unpro se, that the prosecutor is supposed to be there to be to uphold justice, not pervert it.
And that's what this is about. So, Canon 1 through 5, if I make a mistake, please correct me.
I I If I If I file [clears throat] something wrong, that the clerk has let me and my wife know, "Okay, well, this isn't how we do this. We can accept an amendment you write it in." Blah, blah, blah. Okay.
So, I will do the best I can. I am a very different since dying, coma, botched surgeries.
I am a permanent head trauma case.
My short-term memory, it's gone.
So, unless I build a consecutive day after day that same time every time, I'm not going to remember. And Einstein said, "It is worthless to waste brainpower on things that you can write down."
So, so as the independent party here, I And just so you know, I don't know how I'm guessing you probably done some checking into me, but I don't know.
Before I was the judge, I was the prosecutor. Before I was the prosecutor, I was a public defender.
So, I've I've played roles in all three parts here. So, I I mean, I watched your videos um while you were a judge.
I watched the one of the two gentlemen that were arrested.
And you released them.
You dismissed their case.
They were arrested over over a 13 to something over by uh um um a body shop.
Running that.
But, the officers, same two officers that are involved in my case.
Tandem.
Like they do most of the times, which is why they were so close together on my case.
They had to realize that they had to be closer together after you threw that case out.
They broke the Constitution. I watched what you did, and I watched two other videos, which they fully got what they deserved. They broke the law.
Unequivocally. But, those two gentlemen, yes, had the Constitution not been broken, you would have been just fine with your proceeding forward with not dismissing their case.
But, on the grounds that the first thing that the officers did, they broke the law, and then they broke the Constitution, which is exactly what's going on here.
My wife and I have been involved in several auto accidents where the Cadillac Police Department refused to fill out a police report.
There's not a thousand dollars worth of damages. The lady dragged her vehicle all the way down the whole side of our truck from the bumper to the front quarter panel.
That captain of the Cadillac Police Department and five others were there and they wouldn't write a ticket.
So, these two officers >> [clears throat] >> and other officers state, "Well, we don't have to do anything on private property." Well, this whole thing was on [clears throat] private property.
The The officer also stated that he observed me driving. That's a lie.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
False in one thing, false in all. And if you begin it by a lie, how can you be credited to be This is the moment where the hearing completely shifts tone. Up until now, it sounded like chaotic courtroom philosophy class. But suddenly he starts officers of lying, cites false in one thing, false in all, and directly challenges probable cause. Now, that is an actual legal battleground because if an officer falsely claimed they observed him driving, that's not just a minor detail. That could affect the entire stop. But then he immediately mixes potentially real legal issues with sovereign style arguments about jurisdiction and constitutional collapse. And that's what makes these hearings so hard to watch sometimes.
Buried inside the chaos, can occasionally be a legitimate point, but it gets drowned out by everything else.
believed at all.
So, the officer stated that he had probable cause because he observed me driving. That's a lie.
Jurisdiction, lies.
You're an honorable man from what I've seen. So, where I was going with that is that yes, I can provide you leniency, but I can't do it in such a way that it's detrimental to the other side. My side I'm kind of like an umpire. I call balls and strikes, so to speak.
So, while yes, I can give you leniency, I can't spoon-feed you things as to what to say, what to file, that sort of thing. So, where I'm I guess my next question is is if I do allow you to represent yourself, would you be willing to have an attorney somewhat of counsel, where they wouldn't necessarily be the attorney of record, but you would be able to talk to them about, you know, proper you know, how to properly file something, how to if you have any legal questions, um how to, you know, interpretation of the court rules, that type of thing. Is that something that you would be open to?
>> [clears throat] >> So, you would you would be representing yourself, you would just be able to rely on them as a reference. The problem with that, sir, with all due respect, I asked my wife and I asked Jauquins for the supposed 14-second video of not our truck.
Whether those are the victims or not, that wasn't my truck.
In that 14-second video, that wasn't my truck. And I do not accept the fact that I had to watch it at the defender's office, and I still have been refused because policy and procedure, uh because others have put this stuff out on uh public notice.
My wife has had her video of her accident because she had to take up the reins and take care of herself through her job.
Nobody knows about that video. Nobody's seen that video.
And most recently, we found out a bunch of other things.
There's a conflict of interest.
And the prosecution didn't say anything.
My wife, who was ran over and her legs are destroyed, was made a victim. She's being made a victim again.
>> That's in this case? Yes, sir. All right. She was removed as victim and placed as a witness. So, let me >> So, let me ask you and I and I understand I understand why why we're getting a little heated, but sorry. My my Hold on. Let me get my question out.
So, when you say you haven't been provided discovery, do you mean that it hasn't been physically handed to you, but you've had the opportunity to at least watch it?
Discovery, as I'm learning, is a multiplicity of things.
And they have specific names.
So, let let me be more frank because again I'm on a time clock here.
>> Correct.
>> So, have let me just ask you. Have you seen the video? Not has it been provided to you, but have you seen at least what they're saying is the video? No. Okay.
Have you seen the police report?
>> office while playing it, it stopped.
There's an error.
And the video was never allowed to be loaded back up and seen past a specific point.
And it crashes every single time.
>> But they at least >> RJ stated, he's like, "I just watched all of these. I don't understand what's going on."
>> But they at least attempted to play it for you, and then it crashed.
I wasn't >> Presumably.
Discovery means that the evidence comes to me.
>> No, I So, I understand, but just focus on my question for a bit.
My question is, were you given the opportunity to at least try to watch the video? I understand there are some technical issues, but did you at least You were given that opportunity.
>> Yes. And were you given the opportunity to review a police report? Maybe not handed, but did you at least And don't talk about what they told you cuz I don't want to get into attorney-client privilege. But did you at least have the opportunity to to generally say, "Okay, this is what the police report says. What do you say?" And then kind of merge >> The insinuation of attorney-client privilege against her. Please.
Well, I so I I had to be careful with that because I had appointed counsel.
>> Correct.
>> So that's So I'm I'm setting that aside right now. So at least by the time that you were had counsel appointed, that's what I'm considering attorney-client privilege.
>> All right. Not from here forward, just during that time period that you were with either Mr. Jockins or you were with Mr. Champion. Yes. Did you at least have the opportunity to go through a police report?
Maybe [snorts] not being handed to it or handed it. We were given the addition to the police report. We were given the police report originally by Mr. Jockins. Okay. Which at the bottom of the police report and there's no signature of any [clears throat] witness.
All right, Mr. Leffers, I'm I need you to focus on me because because this is one of the rules of the court. It's not appropriate for you to be interacting with with a member of the audience and I realize that you're married and you're one, but I'm not married. Yeah, I I understand and that's where I'm I'm why again why I I I have concerns about the memory aspect in allowing you to just represent yourself on your own and that's one of the reasons I'd asked that question about whether you'd be open to of an of counsel situation where they're they're there for you to talk with about the case. Sorry.
As long as it's completely and if we have to sign an NDA, fine.
I would prefer not to.
I mean, I have nothing to hide.
But if we have to sign a contract stating I'm not contracting with this, my constitutional rights are broken.
I I know what lawyers are about. We've read it.
Now, that's not saying everyone's that way because there there's moral and honorable.
But most of them just want that money.
And I know where their allegiance lies.
Just like I didn't know that a judge also has a banker's oath.
But yes, so all right.
>> do my best. So it sounds though that that you you want to represent yourself, but you're okay with having an of counsel position that you can talk with, make sure things are being filed properly, and that sort of thing. Not that they're representing you, but just to be able to bounce ideas off, so to speak. I reserve all rights through equity and trust law and under the Constitution.
As long as that's not in violated, I don't have a problem with that. All right, that's what I'm saying. Now, So, if if I allow you to represent yourself, are you going to be able again to comport yourself? Cuz realize that in the grand scheme of things, right? The Supreme Court's up here, I'm the district court, I'm way down here.
There's lots of courts to get through before you get to the Supreme Court for a pilot purposes.
So, a lot of things that I'm left to decide are necessarily what the law says, what the Constitution says, the Constitution that is currently before me. There isn't The appellate courts would have to tell me I'm wrong. Do you understand that?
So, but we can read the Constitution.
No, I I understand that, but what I'm saying Article 3, Section 2, Clause But what I'm saying is cuz I have also noticed that in some pleadings you said that you're not a 14th Amendment citizen. But hold on, but yet in the last pleading you said I was violating your 14th Amendment. It's a compilation of both sides.
>> see, it can't be. So, but see, but see, that's that's where things kind of go off the rails because you would agree with me, right? That if you are not a citizen of the United States, um let's say you go to Japan, for example, all right? Uh are you not then subject to Japanese law if you're if you're on their land?
Whether or not you're a citizen, you would still be subject to Japanese law, correct?
No.
No, it's it's it's not an analysis. It's it's You still You still retain your your US your US rights and citizenship, but the minute you would step into that territory of Japan, you're then subject to their laws.
Anything that abrogates the Constitution and its amendments is unlawful. But the Constitution doesn't apply in Japan, right?
No.
It does.
Because what national are you?
That's also protected internationally through the International Court.
Uh Mr. Leffers, um I I will allow you to represent yourself, but I'm just forewarning you that you are going to be held to the same standards and procedures whether or not you agree with those standards and procedures, because that is what I'm bound by.
The standards and procedures that have been set by the Supreme Court, the laws of the state of Michigan, and when I say the Supreme Court, I mean both the Michigan Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. The laws of the state of Michigan and to the interpretations and case law of the uh when it comes in regards to interpretations of the US Supreme the US Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. Now, I realize that you you because you cited the 1850 Michigan Constitution.
In this court's eyes, it's the I believe it's the 1963 is the date.
Don't hold me to that exact date, but the latest version of the Constitution.
When citizens are able to pick and choose which things they um agree with in the Constitution and which things they don't agree with the Constitution, that's where things run afoul. And that's where it takes a court a lot higher than me to make that decision. So, I'm I'm It's a long-winded way of saying is I'm only going to be bound by what is appropriate for this court. If you need to take it to higher courts, that's certainly your prerogative.
But, moving forward, can you at least agree to that? Okay, so from what I remember is that the judge or the prosecutor um depending on how they file it in which the prosecution filed it incorrectly especially after finding out about my nationality status.
Nationality status is protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled on that several times over.
Now, the prosecuting office is supposed to refile the paperwork then and go for a grand jury indictment.
So, there's a proper procedure in which you have to go through to do that, and this is not that proper procedure. And if the prosecutor doesn't want to do that?
Then it falls upon you to make the decision.
Where the truth is what it is.
And Ezekiel 3:18-19 if we are seeing someone in sin and we don't say something on the day of judgment, whatever you have seen or anyone you didn't say something to, you will be judged for.
So, sir I respect you and your honorable ways that I've seen.
The Constitution and my rights have been broken, trampled on.
My due process is broken.
I cannot get an impartial anything in this county. So, what'll happen is if I allow you to represent yourself, you would then be able to file the demands for discovery and the prosecutor would have to turn over to you what um what they have for discovery. Well, it's not just that. Just >> No, but I'm just saying so that's that's one that would alleviate one concern that you have.
Yes, all the information to be executed and relieved over to me which entail all of it.
The financials.
All the bonds that have been opened up >> so there they they can only So, hold on, so they can they can only provide what they have at their and it doesn't charge.
They can only [clears throat] provide what they have at their disposal. They they can't go out or they're not required to go out and seek information that um Let me rephrase that. They don't have to go out and generate discovery. If they don't have it, they don't have it.
Does that make sense?
So, if they don't have a specific bond that you're requesting, they don't necessarily have to go out and get that bond. Do you understand that?
With the paperwork I filed, with the UCC laws on them, it clearly dict- dictates and describes all the evidence that I'm asking for.
What What So, and this is where you get to step in as the lawyer, what authority [clears throat] do you have? What case law that do you have that says that the UCC applies in a Michigan state criminal charge?
The fact that it's tied to the case.
How?
Because the bonds got opened up through the case number.
Oh. So, the thing that's >> So, where do you get the Where do you get that from?
>> social security number. You can look up look Look up on treasurydirect.gov. But that's that's not my responsibility.
>> No, it's not. So >> your due diligence and and learning We started looking.
Multiple friends are helping.
So they're pointing us in the right direction. So we have literally seen it, we have photographed it.
Over 12 bonds have been opened up with a numerical value over over half a million dollars.
As of right now over half a million dollars in EE bonds and I bonds have been opened up off of this case. The only thing attached to this case is my social security number, which my state owns. So who opened the bonds?
Well I would have to be given time to file the paperwork, which I've already been filing.
I've already filed with the trade commission on the fraud that I did not authorize these and I want to see the wet ink signatures.
I also filed for the fiduciary change treasury secretary.
Um My ID will be coming back. That was wonderful because there's a few documents that I have to scan my ID for before I can submit them to the state to continue moving through for my nationality status in whole.
Um And who do you apply to for your nationality status in whole?
Cuz you were you were born >> of stuff.
You got a lot of stuff. You got to set the IRS correct.
You got to set treasury secretary correct. I got to send a letter to the government. I got to send a letter to the head sheriffs.
And like when we lived in Alabama it was a sheriff's director board or whatever.
They they had a meeting every week.
>> [clears throat] >> Um I'd have to send a letter of notification of the revocation of the driver's license and driving privately.
And already switching over the titles to the trust. Just running low on equity.
Um which is why I did the other reason.
Her case is tied to mine.
>> [clears throat] >> Or misconduct. They they they removed her as the victim. She can't use her place properly.
And she's doing the best she can.
We would both be working. I had to stop working because my foreman found out about my CSC and he tried to squish me with 6,000 lb of steel that I just got done welding up.
That was the second job. That was DCL, Traverse City.
Before that it was Stage Right out of Clare.
They loved me so much they didn't want me going a third. They offered me first.
After I got out of temp service because I got into the temp service because I have documentation from the source department stating you don't have to register because you are not a Michigan resident. We support jurisdiction and constitution.
But once you sell your house and you no longer domiciled in Adams County, Illinois, you have to get a Michigan license. So I registered in the private and have registered in the private of my own free will and volition to prove I am not a threat to a community. That if there ever is a problem, you can call me up because the only ones that can see me are y'all.
What do you mean by that?
When we moved down to Illinois I was in They sent a letter. They never would have prosecuted me.
>> [clears throat] >> They never would have charged me. Here's a letter stating that as long as you're an Illinois resident, you will never have to register another day in your life.
Wow. I was able to hold a job for 13 years. Didn't get pushed out. Didn't get hit. Didn't have people trying to kill me.
It's why we left Michigan.
And it went to our children in public school. They were tormented, tortured.
But um >> [clears throat] >> I have documentation proving all the way from Ottawa County, Ottawa, Grandville, um Grand Rapids, um Mecosta, stating I didn't have to register. And I am doing it of my own free will, the decision to protect [clears throat] those that might think nefarious ideas about So, when could because I noticed one of the the pleadings that you filed before, you mentioned that you were >> [clears throat] >> I think you said you were a resident of Kent County. Yes, sir. And that's our in care of address. Okay. All right. Now, so when you said that we're the only ones that are able to see you, are you talking about because of the registry?
Oh, no. That's been changed since I sold my house.
Okay.
The [snorts] house was locked up for about 2 years because the neighbors were so bad.
Liquid draino bombs under the house, attempted arson of the house.
Yeah, and we home school. So, when when you said that we're the only one able to see you, what I guess I need some more clear No, hold on. I need I need some more clarification. What did you mean by we're the only ones who are able to see you? Okay, so the sheriff's department Okay. [clears throat] when we first came back to Michigan, I contacted them. They said, "Well, we're going to have to look into this.
We don't really know what to do.
So, they got back with me. Stated, "You don't have to do anything."
I'm like, "What do you mean?" Like, "You don't have to register. You don't have to notify anybody anywhere you go in the state of Michigan. You're not a Michigan resident."
Okay. I'm like, "Okay, I was charged in Michigan way back then, and I don't want anyone thinking anything wrong." The SOR Department flat out stated, "Look, if you want to register, you can.
We will keep you in the private registry section.
But, the only ones that will see you are law enforcement."
I'm like, Okay. So, I I know you did.
So, SOR Department and I, when I went to Ottawa County, Fillmore County Complex, they're like, "Wait, what's going on here? You're not a sex offender." I'm like, "No, I'm not."
So, they were going to register you?
>> They didn't know what to do. They had to get on the phone with the SOR Department. I was in that waiting room over an hour and a half, allowing them time to get everything situated.
And then I willfully went on the the sex offender registry that I didn't have to do because the SOR Department of Michigan respects jurisdiction and constitution.
All right.
All right, Mr. Leffers, I am going to allow you to represent yourself. Um again, we've got an understanding that you're going to do the best that you can to be compliant with the court rules. Um also, uh I'll allow the public defender's office to remain on as of counsel, so that you can reach out to them. Not saying that they're going to represent you, but they're going to be there for a resource for you. Okay?
And so, that means from here on out, you're going to be able to represent yourself, and you're going to be held to the same standards as as we discussed.
So, now I'll I can give you some leniency, but not a ton.
>> to let you know, though.
This can't proceed.
You're I cannot be a part of fraud.
So So So, Mr. Leffers, this is This is where we get into the procedural aspect of it. This is where you will be able to file motions. You'll be able to conduct the hearing. And then that's where you'll be asking me to make a determination as to whether or not the case goes forward. But understand there's only certain ways that that can be done in a criminal matter.
So, just because you stand here today and asking for that, what I have is is your word, but the the prosecution doesn't have the ability to put anybody on to contradict your word.
And so, we would have to have an evidentiary hearing, which is essentially what the preliminary examination would be for.
Um and that is And And that's that's the next step in the proceed Well, actually, the next step would be for you to meet with the prosecutors to see if there's a way to resolve the case, which I understand if you don't want to. And then this The next step after that would be what we call the preliminary examination, and that's where witnesses would take the stand.
They would testify. You would have the ability to cross-examine those witnesses. You would have the ability to call your own witnesses. The prosecution can examine your witnesses or cross-examine your witnesses. And then you can make your argument then as to whether or not it's Whatever the arguments you want to make as to whether or not the case should be dismissed.
Today's not that proper time. That proper time is going to You're going to get it, but it's going to be at some different point in the future. Do you understand that?
>> Yes, sir. All right.
Ask you one last thing.
Yes.
Ex turia incumbent onus from bond B.
The burden of truth is on the plaintiff that [snorts] originally brought the charges. That's correct.
And when I say that you get to make an argument, you don't have to present any evidence. They can get up there and put on their witness, and you can just you can argue as to why I should or should not move the case forward.
Okay. In the ex- >> [clears throat] >> I need to be allowed full access to everything.
Not while set up an appointment.
I get up at 2:00 in the morning.
I go to bed at like 12:30 at night.
So [clears throat] so so I have a lot of time on my hands.
>> So what will happen is is you'll Yeah.
You So there won't necessarily be an appointment with the prosecutor's office. What what will happen and now it's been been a while. Hold on. It's been a while since I've been there and this is part of the procedural aspect of this.
You you will have to file a demand for discovery.
All right? You'll have to file that with the prosecutor. Now that you are now that you are going to be representing yourself, you would file a demand for discovery with the prosecutor's office.
Outline everything that you want them to produce, understanding that they only have to produce what they have in their records. They don't have to go out and find things to help substantiate your case, right?
>> Correct.
Now they do have a certain amount of time in which to do that with. So it's not like you can file today and request it tomorrow. They've got a reasonable amount of time, which the Michigan Supreme Court has decided is 21 days to comply with that request.
>> Okay, that was a quandary that we came across. We've seen 5 days, 7 days, 21 days. We couldn't exactly pinpoint anything for sure. So thank you for clarifying.
>> So yes, the Michigan rules of of criminal procedure adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court says that they have 21 days to comply.
If they don't comply within that 21-day period, then there's other avenues that you have to either force compliance or if it's if it's such a out out disregard for the rule, it could result in a dismissal of the case. That's a very extreme based on just discovery, but that is a potential outcome there.
Okay, and all the times before this don't matter?
So, all the times before you were represented by counsel, so those requests would have come through would have had to have come through counsel, which is how Mr. Champion got it and how Mr. Dawkins got it. But that goes against what I was stated and I objected to it.
I I understand that, but again, that goes into the the procedures that the Michigan Supreme Court have set up for the courts to follow.
But now that you're representing yourself, you are in a completely different place than you were before.
May I be candid?
Sure.
So, does that mean that what all of the court dates up until now was the inquiry competency test?
No, nobody Nobody No, no, no, no. No Nobody has requested competency on you.
Well, Mr. Dawkins said Mr. Dawkins did, but we didn't even get to that point.
Yep.
>> [clears throat] >> No, no. What What this What this meaning What we've been doing is I want to make sure because as I said, I'm the the independent party here. I want to make sure that your rights are protected, that you're getting the adequate representation and the right information that you need in order to make sure that your rights are protected. Now, I understand that you might not agree with some of those procedures and it might not be moving as fast as you wanted it to, but that is why I had I don't remember whether I had appointed Mr. or requested Mr. Jackins an appointment for him, but I know I specifically when we removed him from the case, I do specifically remember requesting another appointment of an attorney because again, once you step into the role of representing yourself, that puts you at a whole different level as far as compliance with court rules, procedures, appellate rights as as opposed to having representation.
So, I wanted to make sure that you had every available opportunity to you. Now, all these dates that you've had, they all go to what we call the speedy trial clock. So, because you are charged with a felony, there's you have to be because you're not in custody, it's a little bit different, but we all look at the speedy trial clock as being 180 days before you should be at trial.
All right, because you're not in custody, there's some grace given to that, but all these then look at um whether or not who these delays should be accounted against. So, all these dates you've had were not in vain.
They're one to make sure that you're getting the appropriate representation, and they will be considered when it comes time to a speedy trial clock decision if you get to that point. You may prevail at preliminary examination and we don't have to worry about speedy trial.
In reading, if I agree, then that means I'm ignoring all of the past times that the things I've stated about the Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 >> [clears throat] >> are being ignored and I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with that.
You're you're you're not you're not saying that you're okay with that. What you're doing is um you're going to get your opportunity to raise those issues. It's just not right now. It's going to be at a point a couple dates down the road. I object to all of it.
All right, I'll note I'll note your objection. But but if I have to go through this, fine.
Fine.
Okay.
So, I'll note your objection. I'll allow you to represent yourself. The public defender's office will remain on in in of counsel capacity.
Uh we will reset this then for a probable cause conference.
Um Now, the other issue Hold on. The other issue is you had also filed a motion to set aside a default. Yes, sir.
There has been no default judgments entered. So, I'm That came in the mail.
We didn't know what the heck was going on, which that No offense. What what came in Was there a civil infraction with this?
Yes.
It was slipped in when I left.
I didn't fully grasp >> a civil infraction?
>> It did fail to pay booking fee. All right. So, we will I will grant that request.
>> objection to it, though. We do. You have Go ahead and object.
Sorry.
All right.
And I went in on a Saturday before I went and worked with Bob, Travis's cousin.
And and um the gentleman on the phone said that the booking fee was $12, and you could pay it at the kiosk 24/7.
So, we went in and we paid the $12.
And it apparently still stated that uh monies was owed. Fee off was owed to the kiosk, which didn't make any sense unless all the dumping of whatever charges were added on.
But we went We have the receipt for the $12 of the booking fee that we were informed personally on the phone from a Wexford County officer.
And the website also says that it's a $12 booking fee.
Then we got that I got that in the mail.
It This is preposterous. This is nonsense. All right. So, what I'm going to do is we will um I will set aside that default.
Thank you, sir. We can deal with that in a normal course of business in regards to that. Thank you, sir. All right. So, Mr. Laffers, you can go out to the front window where you checked in. Is there somebody out there to give him a court date?
>> [clears throat and cough] >> Uh and get your next court date, okay?
Yes, can we speak about that, please?
Yes. Very briefly cuz I'm now an hour behind.
So, my my So, my thought is PCC would be reset for next Tuesday.
Will that work for you or no? Honestly, no. Okay. So, will the following Tuesday, which would be the 19th, will that work? 19th would be fine.
>> Okay. So, we will reset it for the 19th.
That will give you time to get uh discovery requests to the prosecutor.
And uh it'll be set for 10:30 on the 19th.
Now, this means that I will be able to have all the discovery within my So, remember they've got 21 days to comply, but my guess is since they provided it to different attorneys, they can probably get it to you within a 2-week time period. Well, no. I'm not I'm not talking about the time frame, sir. What I mean is the actual tangible me being able to download all these videos So, it's not going public. So, it's not going public. So, what'll happen? I don't know how it works anymore in their office, but they'll either provide you a link to click on or you'll get a a CD to put into a computer. However, they do it, that's how you'll receive it.
Um my I think they do it by link now where you'll be able to click a link and download it, but don't hold me to that.
But, you can talk with the prosecutor's office about the best way to get it to you. Now, there's a discernment with that one.
If it's a link to a video, how how am I supposed to make sure that that thing hasn't been doctored up or anything?
Well, that's where you as your attorney get to figure that out.
Unfortunately, I don't have the the accessibility of resources at my hands as the prosecutor does. So, if I were to want to have a video authenticated So, there's a process. So, the court is no longer involved with appointing um expert witnesses. Because you are indigent, you would have to then request through the public defender's office, which they're going to be of counsel, um to see whether or not they have any funds available to uh hire an expert on your behalf. I'm not saying that they will. I'm not saying that they won't. I I don't know because they're they're their own independent office.
Um but that's where your of counsel attorney is going to come in and maybe give you some guidance there.
Yeah, I object all of this.
>> I understand and I I know your objection.
>> rights have been broken, man. I know, but there's just because because you think it has been and I'm not saying I'm not saying that that you're wrong.
Please don't take it that way. But the prosecution has the the ability to defend their case and today is is not that day. That day is coming.
It's coming. I promise you that, but it's not here yet. Okay? So, just bear with us a little bit. Yes, sir. All right. I thank you for your patience, staying, and your cooperation. Uh you can go out to the front window where you checked in.
I appreciate you coming, sir. All right.
Thank you.
Thank you. It has been a pleasure meeting you all again.
Can we have Mr. Waters' case?
Uh I'm going to end the live stream because this
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02











