Ernest Hancock
Letters to the Editor • Arizona's Top News
WILL JOHN STUART GET A FAIR TRIAL???
John Stuart started trial yesterday, September 19, 2011. The State filed the following obscure and unreasonable motion in limine. Is it possible for John to get a fair trial?
The State of Arizona, by and through undersigned counsel, requests that this Court preclude pro per defendant, John Chester Stuart from acting inappropriately in the above cause. The following requests are based upon Mr. Stuart's 100 plus pleadings. The State suggests the Court review at least some of these "pleadings" as well as the following Minute Entries for a better understanding of this defendant's intentions with regards to this trial. Minute Entry by Judge Kreamer, dated August 17, 2011. Minute Entry by Judge Davis, dated July 1,2011.
Specifically, the State requests that the Court order:
1) That Mr. Stuart be precluded from mentioning government conspiracies, and Sheriff Arpaio.
2) That he be precluded from insinuating that he has not been treated fairly by the judicial system or the State's prosecutor.
3) That he be precluded from suggesting or insinuating that the State is not interested in achieving the ends of justice but only in obtaining another conviction.
4) That he be precluded from readdressing any issues during trial that have been resolved by way of any motions prior to trial.
5) That he be precluded from arguing in front of the jury that he never had an opportunity to interview a State's witness, thereby implying that he has been treated unfairly.
6) That he be precluded from walking over to the jury and addressing the jury while a witness is on the stand.
7) That he be precluded from arguing any issues of law in front of the jury except during closing argument
8) That he be precluded from arguing to the jury that they have been prevented from hearing all the issues in this case.
9) That he be precluded from making editorial comments during the questioning of witnesses.
10) That he be precluded form making speaking objections.
11) That he be prohibited from misleading the jury by making innuendos about prosecutorial misconduct or unfair discovery.
12) That he be prohibited from commenting on punishment, either directly or by implication.
13) That he be precluded from making unfounded assertions or insinuations before the jury that witness Carla Bartschi has been made any promises in exchange for testifying or that she has warrants or that she's a friend of the prosecutor
14) That he be precluded from saying that he has worked on a documentary, that he's been fighting the government for years, about corruption in the system
15) That he be precluded from playing movies or documentaries during trial
16) That he be precluded from saying that the state and Sheriff Arpaio plan to murder him
17) That he be precluded from making unfounded assertions that the prosecutor lied to any grand jury or to any court or judge
18) That he be precluded from making personal attacks against the prosecutor, any judge, attorney, or any witnesses
19) That he be precluded from mentioning his bond, his IRS issues, and what other judges or attorneys did or did not do with regard to those issues
20) That he be precluded from mentioning the fact that he went through a rule 11 evaluation or that he received any psychological, or neuropsychiatric testing
21) That he be precluded from handing out anything to jurors
22) That he be precluded from talking to jurors about or asking witnesses about government employees' pensions and "the sale of prisoners"
23) That he be precluded from asking witnesses about their religions, if they rent or own their homes, or their religious beliefs
24) That he be precluded from calling witnesses liars and from asking witnesses to testify about whether another witness was or is lying
25) That he be precluded from asking witnesses if they have driver's licenses or if they belong to certain organizations or if they have any prior or current convictions or warrants
26) That he be precluded from mentioning the fact that he filed and lost a civil rights violation lawsuit in federal court with regards to this case
27) That he be precluded from claiming that he has not been allowed to represent himself until May 2011
28) That he be precluded from reading out loud the contents of any motion, response, reply, or ruling
29) That he be precluded from making any arguments about fact or law during his opening statement
30) That he not comment to the jury during the questioning of witnesses.
31) That he not be allowed to refer to a signed order by Judge Steinle dismissing the case, judge Steinle having explained in a minute entry dated May 1, 2008, that he signed that order by mistake.
32) That he precluded from mentioning the I.R.S. letter dated February 7,2008 or any other LR.S. letters
33) That he be precluded from using the Phoenix Police Department's DUI manual
34) That he be precluded from mentioning the amicus brief that was filed on his behalf by Terry Major
35) That he be precluded from showing or reading any emails between him and one Jasmine Bartschi as they constitute hearsay without exception
35) That he be precluded from presenting a drug testing report taken by him on or about February 2008 and precluded from presenting phone records as neither item has been disclosed to the State.
36) That he be precluded from showing or mentioning an alleged DVD of a re-enactment of the shooting that he put together as said DVD constitutes late disclosure
37) That he be precluded from mentioning, reading from, or referring to websites and what they contain as they are hearsay
38) That he be precluded from referring to "Brochure for Romans V Coins" and "Romans V Coin" as irrelevant
39) That he be precluded from discussing any memos by the Department of Homeland Security regarding items he had in his vehicle or police must have in their vehicles
40) That he be precluded from referring to or reading from any Affidavits not provided to the State and whose authors do not testify in court as to the actual Affidavit
41) That he be precluded from calling to the stand any and all witnesses not disclosed to the State.
42) That he be precluded from reading from the transcript or playing any recordings of witness interviews unless the witnesses testify first.
43) That he be precluded from introducing any statements allegedly made by the victim, Orville Thomas Beasley in any blog, website, chat room, or any internet activity as such statements are considered hearsay without exception
46) That he be precluded from referring to or reading from any Corpus Juris Secundum
47) That he be precluded from referring to or reading from any book during trial
48) That he be precluded from referring to or reading from "Innocence Project Statistics" and data 251 falsely convicted and exonerated.
49) That he be precluded from noticing any other so called witnesses
50) That he be precluded from using an "Eyewitness Misidentification Chart" that he obtained from a website
51) That he be precluded from using a "Government Misconduct/Chart"
52) That he be precluded from doing a show and tell with shot glasses, a display rack, and a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey
53) That he be precluded from reading from or referring to any minute entry produced by any court
54) That he be precluded from referring to unfounded allegations of purposely destroyed evidence by the prosecution or the Phoenix Police Department until and less the court gives him express approval to do so in closing argument
55) That the defendant be precluded from asking any questions of any witnesses about his release conditions
56) That the defendant be precluded from asking case and fact specific questions during Voire Dire
56) That he be precluded from you using any information obtained from the civil case
involving forfeiture proceedings
57) That the defendant understand that if he violates any of the court's rulings, the Court may
revoke his pro per status and order that advisory counsel take over for the remainder of
the trial.
58) That the defendant also understand the concept of "invited error" so that he does not
attempt to cause a mistrial through his behavior during trial. The State reserves the right to supplement this Motion in Limine as inappropriate issues or arguments are raised by the defendant at any time during the pending of the proceedings.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of September, 2011.
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
By: /s/Susie Charbel Deputy County Attorney
Editors Reply
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
15 Comments in Response to WILL JOHN STUART GET A FAIR TRIAL???
Guted his direct officer at the army and brags about it. Trained to kill with throwing knives mostly missd his target from second hand knowledge. And piono wire around the throught.
He was scared shittless of a drunk who was unarmed. Instead of rasing his window and trying to drive off and call the cops or talk the guy down.
He argued and shot him. The Mr Shit pants threw his shit stained pants out the window.
He is and will always be waiing to gut, shoot or use piano wire on someone. He is insane and wants his play time.
Mr Shiity pants who claims to have gutted a surperior in the army before his short term was over is guilty.
He lives for using his weapons. He bragged about throwing knives and killing people with piano wire. When the day came he would be on his roof with a sniper rifle picking people off.
He was scarred shittless of maybe a drunk. He could have closed his window. Driven carefully or semi not forward and back and fled . No window open kept argueing back. Then shot an unarmed guy. John Stuart who claim to kill with a piano wire needed a gun. He is insane.
This man-John definitely will not get a fair trial. For me just the statement made by the prosecutor about the heavily drunk driver (with an extreme DUI) that it's a cool and fun , and he-the drinker could handle his alcohol (1.9) is more than enough evidence what trial would be........
I would recommend Mr. Stuart obtain counsel, not piss off the court filing 100+ pleadings and try to plea down to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon & manslaughter. Even if it was self defense, he was blocking the dead man's vehicle (not vice versa), he could have left, but didn't. He will have to pay for his own actions and choices.
This is really a tragedy. The deceased was driving drunk. This was totally avoidable.
Get a lawyer, before you go down for murder.
How is one to "defend" themselves when the court has limited the information to such an extent that there is no defense?? Can anyone say Kangroo Court...
Maybe this is why they're denying him: The Court previously identified 29 separate filings from Defendant John Stuart and denied the relief sought therein. See August 17. 2011 Minute Entry. The Court noted that the filings raised frivolous arguments that had already been addressed and rejected previously and that the filings contained numerous personal attacks against multiple individuals as well as the system generally. The Court informed the Defendant that it would not consider any further documents filed by Defendant, unless the filing contained a certification from Defendant’s advisory counsel. Defendant has filed an “Objection” to this ruling
If he uses any of his PNJ crap that he's noted for he'll go to prison!
I was there today for the opening and closing arguments, as well as the testimony of the wife of the deceased, Mr. Beasley... This is surely a tragic event of things gone out of hand and all parties suffered. I certainly lament, as I believe all present in the courtroom.
We cannot ignore the facts. The deceased was a .19 alcohol blood content which is the equivalent to an extreme DUI charge, plus, and additional 1/2 DUI BAC. The deceased's own wife admitted he was drinking differently than usual for the record.
If I were on the jury, this is what I would take note of right away: The defendant is a volunteer, with a long history of donating time for free to help others, evidenced by his belief in and demonstration in that belief by spending his free time posting Ron Paul signs, as most FreedomsPhoenix subscribers can appreciate. The man who lost his life was evidenced as a continual and heavy daily drinker with no altruistic interests. I can not ignore the fact that I do not see what John Stuart would have to gain by simply chosing to murder this man unless he seriously believed that his life were in danger.
I would encourage every person with the time to fill the right side to the entrance of the courtroom with signage (tasteful of course) that can be brought out after getting through the original checkpoints at the courthouse to get this man off of what I believe is an enhanced prosecution because he is an obvious target as a political dissident and a threat to the criminal RICO ( "RICO" meaning Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act) empire that controls our courts today. After implementation of the 9/11 Patriot Act, what was once not only unAmerican, became legal, allowing for cointelpro (targeting and harassing and deliberate demise of dissidents who are a threat to what this RICO network has morphed our legal rights to slavery through the implementation of 9/11, into the the United States [for profit] CORPORATION). Yes, Americans, we were taken over by organized crime drug and racketeering money as early as 1961 when the current RICO laws were enacted that go ignored in our criminally controlled courts today.
The more persons who populate the court that the jury can see sides with John, the more chance that this unfortunate experience will not result in an unfortunate wasteful experience of an activist male who can do a TON of damage to their criminal empire going to prison only to make the industrial complex a nice hunk of change from the taxpayers only to disappear to an offshore account while the regime purposefully and systematically bankrupts our society and is granted purchased amnesty in corrupted "holy" Israel. People, we have to support our fighters for freedom. We do not have much time. I am already informed of California grade school employees being forced to comply with intense FEMA training that we all know will result in HAARP induced "natural" [sic] disaster that will filter American children into unknown exploits of a very sick governmental regime that knows no bounds today. For at least 20 years, our constitutional rights have been suspended due to a constant state of war, whether it be for terror, drugs or opium-rich afganistan (not to mention their weapons of mass destruction raid that never recovered such from Iraq, for which we have colonized and paid for mass Nazi Germany styled detention centers for its people that our media monopolies will never tell us the truth about). We do not have time, people. This is, as I discussed with Ernest Hancock today, why I am as volatile as I am with these what I call "slactivists" (thank you Morpheous for the brilliant coining of the term)... for which we cannot afford to feed our egos. We MUST unite and go nuclear, before it is too late. Look around you. People, stop allowing yoursleves to be distracted.
On a more positive note, I did not get a bad feeling about the judge from her actions. I am hopeful that she wants to provide justice and hope that justice will be served. But warm bodies, as many as possible are needed to help this man avoid a needless sentence in the highly profitable prison industrial complex and politically controlled courts that would love to see this activist behind bars.
God Bless all of America as well as all of God's children on the earth.
They're probably doing him a favor by limiting the information he can use. John is a nut bag conspiracy-theorist.
The reason this is so exhaustive is because even were the "public Servant on the Bench" to eliminate most of them, John would still have to deal with some of them and then they can appoint a attorney for him to speak. I would suggest and I realize it might be too late now, but have John present an equally long list of things the prosecutor can not talk about with a penalty they dont want to deal with.
46) That he be precluded from referring to or reading from any Corpus Juris Secundum This is THEIR book of the law
I have worked in the legal field for almost 20 years, and even though I haven't worked in criminal law, I have never seen or heard of a motion in limine like this. Some of my favorites are:
10) That he be precluded from making speaking objections.
Is he supposed to just bang on the table or are they going to give him a sign he can hold up when he has an objection??
20) That he be precluded from mentioning the fact that he went through a rule 11 eveluation or that he received any psychological or neuropsychological testing.
OH as if they wouldn't use the HECK out of the testing had it resulted in a determination that he was mentally unsound.
33) That he be precluded from using the Phoenix Police Department's DUI manual.
What?? He can't use a manual that the police used? Can the police use it?
54) That he be precluded from referring to unfounded allegations of purposely destroyed evidence by the prosecution or the Phoenix Police Department until and [un]less the court gives him express approval to do so in closing argument.
"Unfounded" means not based on fact. So that means he can use all the facts he wants to show the puposely destroyed evidence, right? :)
Hummm, mighty nice of the Co. Attorney to make a bullet point list of John's opening statement.
Great letter to the editor... the answer is NO John will not get a fair trial. I have watched several things IN COURT with direct inconsistencies allowed to stand by the judge. Things said RIGHT IN COURT. amazing. Your list of what is being done is amazing. I am doing an intro blogpost to link back to this article. THANKS to the author!!!!So what can the man actually do to defend himself?
This is obviously a calculated move by the STATE to get him off the case and in contempt so the other STATE payed lawyer will take over.
#47 You can't refer to a book? Well, I guess no one will be sworn in on the bible....after all, its a book :)