Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
GoldPatriot

Call For Help - Urgent

I just recieved this email 6 minutes ago:

Subject: urgent
Sent: Today at 10:04pm
Sent by: Glindberg

"Den if you get this please give me a call, 763-757-5929, John Crossmans wife has been arrested (w/o reading miranda rights) because she refused to give her liscense to the ranger and police officer, claiming "obstruction of justice". The USFS is trying to say they exceeded their 14 day camping, but they were prospecting and posted a location notice (which they have 90 days to file entry). They waited till 9 pm to come in (John ran back to town), I believe they came in knowing Nicole (aka Jan Doe) was there alone and basically said nope you don't need my info, thus was arrested (placed in handcuffs) for obstruction and the P.O. said he did not need to read miranda rights, which is on video. "


Gary:

First, she was under no legal obligation to give her name or other information to either the USFS or the police officer.  Second, regardless of her answer or failure to answer their questions, once detained for any questioning, she had to, under the law, be read her Miranda rights.  This not even a close call.  SCOTUS has ruled, that "any detention of a person, when not given the option of freely walking away, is in fact, under technical arrest and thus, must be read their Miranda rights, prior to any questioning.  By refusing her her civil rights, the Feds and State just lost the case and can be sued in both Federal and State courts, for civil rights violations.

Then there is the question of jurisdiction, which frankly, seems at this point to lean in favor of the miner and his wife.  In the way and time in which this attack was carried out, it smells of entrapment and abuse of power.  If the only issue was "camping", a simple warning would ordinarily be given.  This is the first case I have ever heard, where a camper was arrested without warning, over the failure to fully identify one's self.  If that were the law, almost every homeless person would now be behind bars.  No, this had nothing to do with "camping" or "ID".  From the information supplied, it also does not seem that "immediate action" was deemed necessary or legally proper, given the time frame permitted.  So what we have left is a badge heavy police officer, which most likely has no jurisdiction, getting mad that the woman didn't bow to his every command, no matter how unlawful the command was.    

More later as I ponder the other legal issues, but I would proffer this tonight;  Given the circumstances, issues and violations of law on the part of the Feds and State, any attorney worth their salt, should have this gal out of jail and all charges dropped within 5 minutes.  I can also tell you, that this case will NEVER see the inside of a courtroom and the agents know it.  Thus, the couple also have the charge, in addition to the civil rights violations, a very good case of harassment and abuse of power (authority).  The video can be a killer for the agents and every care and effort should be made immediately, to get a certified copy of the video for the defense.

More to come....
Glindberg

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 7
ARRESTS AND SEIZURES OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY -- SPECIAL OFFICERS
18-705. Resisting and obstructing officers. Every person who wilfully resists, delays or obstructs any public officer, in the discharge, or attempt to discharge, of any duty of his office or who knowingly gives a false report to any peace officer, when no other punishment is prescribed, is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year.

This what she is being cited for, at the time she was working concentrates. She will be providing more information shortly.
johncrossman

Thank you for the support

I just wanted to take a moment to thank all involved in helping us out. We are all back in camp and going to continuing mining. My wife is going sit this morning and explain all that has transpired and we hope to get the video up soon.

Thank you all, John Crossman
johncrossman

Question about fourteen day stay limit

Can some one explain the proper or the unproper proccess if we stay over the the so called 14 day limit, yes we have located but, if we continue to stay they are threatening to impound our equipment. We just want to be clear as to where this goes, I don't want to lose our equipment or vehicles.

Thanks, john
GoldPatriot

Glindberg wrote:
TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 7
ARRESTS AND SEIZURES OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY -- SPECIAL OFFICERS
18-705. Resisting and obstructing officers. Every person who wilfully resists, delays or obstructs any public officer, in the discharge, or attempt to discharge, of any duty of his office or who knowingly gives a false report to any peace officer, when no other punishment is prescribed, is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year.

This what she is being cited for, at the time she was working concentrates. She will be providing more information shortly.


Here is the problem that the USFS and the police officer (Sheriff Deputy?) has.  If I understand the timing correctly, the wife had already been advised that the encampment would be allowed until "Sunday".  At that point, the matter was fully and legally resolved.  If the arresting officer, after the fact, demanded ID, the USFS and the police agency simply don't have a pot to piss in.  The "demand", if made after the fact, was unlawful.

If at the beginning of the confrontation, ID was demanded in the investigation of a possible criminal investigation, your wife would be at risk. The timing of the "Demand" caught on tape, will determine the outcome of the case, if it ever goes to court, which is questionable at this point.

I do want to thank you, for immediately getting the word out to us, so that the victims had at least some support and help.  It's the right thing to do and I hope we get the point across to all miners... you do not have to go it alone.. ever.

Den
NCrossman

Urgent

Hi everyone.  Yes it is true what you read above.  I was arrested last night and released early this morning.  Please bare with me as I will do my best to remember, all that had transpired during this time.  I also know and understand that as many details as possible would be of great help to you.  So therefore, I will do my best.  

With that I want to state one more thing.  I AM A MINERAL ESTATE GRANTEE, not just a minor's wife or camp hostess!  I get out there and mineral extract like the rest of you guys.  So with that being said (not being feminist or sarcastic) I will greatly appreciate all of the help you can give me as soon as possible.  Just email me or PM me and I will give you my number if you would like to know more.  

THANKS TO GARY LINDBERG, I owe you one buddy!  As for this site and all the guys with the quick response to this case, I am truly thankful and honored to be a member of this site and a part of S.W.I.M.A. (south west idaho mining association)  FYI, they have now renamed me to be "jail bird" hehe...
GoldPatriot

Dear Ms. Jail Bird:

Now that you flew the coop on a lark, could you give us the details of how your goose got cooked.

Thanks

Den

Laughing
NCrossman

hi this is the second half of a video footage and the grouping and arrest.  I will get the rest of the info soon as I have gone back to mining today.  


I am also having posting and computer issues.  It is also hard when you are working off tethering and mobile hotspots on the claim Wink

Here is the youtube link...

http://youtu.be/v5V_pMxtPms
GoldPatriot

Your Youtube link shows you took the video down.. in any case, it's not available.

Den
NCrossman

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP GUYS!!!

People involved:
M.E.G.: Nicole Crossman
Sheriff: R. TATILIAN
BLM AGENT #1 (MALE): JEFF WEISS
BLM AGENT#2 (FEMALE): ANNMARIE SHARKEY
ADA CO. DEPUTY FEMALE: ALIAS UNKNOWN SORRY
ADA CO. DEPUTY MALE: ALIAS UNKNOWN SORRY.

TIME FRAME: BETWEEN 845 PM (FROM WHEN THEY ARRIVED) TO (JAIL RELEASE) 240 AM

My husband (John Crossman) had arrived on a "BLM" 14 day stay campsite on Wednesday, July 11, 2012. This all happened on a Friday, July 20, 2012, that is only 9 days.
Ok! Whew! Here we go from the beginning.  
Weiss: Hi!  How’s it going tonight?  
Nicole: Good.  How are you?
Weiss: (shakes head) Uh, this is a nice set up here.
Nicole: Yes, it is comfortable.  
Weiss: Awesome, how many people can you feed with this set up?  
Nicole: When the kitchen cupboards are full, we can feed up to 20 people or so.
Weiss: No Kidding?  Wow, that’s amazing.  
Nicole: Yes, but we haven’t fed that many in a while. (chuckle)
Weiss: Alright!  Well we were just checking things out, I would say have a great weekend then.  
Nicole:  Thanks, oh yeah it is Friday, isn’t it?  
Weiss; Yes, have a good weekend.
Nicole: alright, you too.
Weiss: (backs off and heads to vehicle)
Sharkey: Um!  Can you tell me what it is that you are doing here?
Nicole: With what?
(there was our sluice box on the ground, and a pump motor / she points to them)
Sharkey: These here (pointing)
Nicole: oh That is a sluice box.
Sharkey: and this?
Nicole: that is a pump of some sort connected to a little motor…
Sharkey: oh I see. Um what is used for?
Nicole: That is my mineral exploration device.  I use it to extract certain minerals from a subsurface source.
Sharkey: oh I see.  Can I see your ID?
Nicole: For what? I don’t think you need to see that.  You are not law enforcement .
Sharkey: Yeah I do, I am a federal BLM AGENT.  If you want I can call the sheriff and he can get me your Id?
Nicole: Can you get your supervisor out here?  
Sharkey: Im calling the sheriff. “dispatch… Blm 807.. I need an officer out here just past alder creek bridge on the southfork road.”  I called the sheriff and he can get that info I need from you.
Nicole:  Well I want to inform you that you are trespassing on a federal mining claim.  
Sharkey:  I want you to show me your mining corner posts, signs and notices.
Nicole: No.  You are more than welcome to go and find them if you are so concerned of that, but the notice of location is located in that tree over there.
Sharkey: Can I have your ID?
Nicole: No I don’t think you need my ID?
Sharkey: Mam, this is public land with a 14 day stay limit on it. How much longer do you think you will be staying?  The rest of the weekend?
Nicole: I am not sure.  And this is actually public domain once I entered it to prospect.  Especially because I have a claim here!
Sharkey: This is public land.
Nicole: It WAS public land it is NOW Public DOMAIN.  Are you familiar with laws that have granted me to be entitled to this public domain?
Sharkey: I am aware of the mining laws!
Nicole: Really?  Which one?
Sharkey: The 1800 one.
Nicole:  There isn’t an 1800 mining law.
Sharkey: I own and manage all of these minerals you are trying to mine for.  I need to identify who I am speaking with. ID?
Nicole: There is no reason to see my ID.  Really?  You are telling me that you supersede the constitution of the United states?
Sharkey: Yes, I do.  I own ALL OF THESE MINERALS here.  
(NOTICE WEISS HAS NOT SAID A WORD)
Nicole: No, you are a surface management agency, and what we are doing is extracting minerals from a SUB-surface area.  
Sharkey:  I don’t think that will fly.  You will have to how me an ID or I will make an arrest.
Nicole: You don’t have that authority, you are a code enforcement, not a law enforcement officer.  
Sharkey:  No.  I am a federal agent and I get my authority from the Flpma
FROM THIS POINT ON WE HAVE A VIDEO LINK HERE http://youtu.be/MNQdrLyEu88

The second video starting at the arrest and search (#2) was already uploaded.  If it is a problem, we will have to try and upload that video again.
Now, the 2nd video shows threats by the sheriff Tatilian and the body search and violation.
AFTER THE SHOW:
The sheriff AND BLM agents stopped one mile from our campsite at a chevron station and parked their vehicles anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour with me in the back with tight cuffs on.
Tatilian: dispatch… Blm 807.. I have an unidentified female in custody…  
Dispatcher: What’s going on?
Tatilian: I have an unidentified female in custody who refused to give me her identification
Dispatcher:  Whats the charge?
Tatilian: Obstruction
Dispatcher: For what?
Tatilian: refusing to give me her ID?  I think she should go to ADA Co. Jail.  Probably til Monday and she can see a judge.
Dispatch OR HIS SUPERVISOR ( I WAS UNSURE HERE): Is Annmarie anywhere around you?
Tatilian: Yes. Hang on.
Sharkey: Dispatch… BLM 807
Dispatch: Hey uh, did you get those reports that were due this morning on (my/his) desk?
Sharkey: Ooh… I forgot.  I will get those to you as soon as I get back to the desk/office.
(WEISS, SHARKEY AND TATILIAN STAND OUT IN FRONT OF THE HOOD OF SHERIFF VEHICLE TALKING)
TATILIAN WALKS OVER TO MY DOOR; OPENS IT AND …
TATILIAN: ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE ME YOUR ID YET?
NICOLE: NO, I STILL DON’T SEE A REASON AS TO WHY YOU NEED THAT.
TATILIAN: I AM PLACING YOU UNDER ARREST FOR OBSTRUCTION.
Nicole: For what?
Tatilian: we could keep going round and round about this
(HE SHUTS THE DOOR IN MY FACE.)
(He walks back over to WEISS AND SHARKEY, they are laughing and I am just sitting there waiting)
A FEW MINUTES LATER HE WALKS BACK OVER TO MY DOOR OPENS IT AND…
TATILIAN: LOOK, I CAN TAKE YOU BACK TO YOUR CAMP IF YOU JUST GIVE ME THE INFO I REQUESTED
NICOLE: WHAT AM I BEING CHARGED WITH?
TATILIAN: I TOLD YOU.
NICOLE: I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS OR OBSTRUCTION TO WHAT?
TATILIAN: I TOLD YOU THAT I NEEDED TO TELL MY DISPATCH WHAT CALL I WAS ON AND AN IDENTIFICATION.
HE SHUTS THE DOOR AGAIN.
A FEW MINUTES GO BY AGAIN AND THEN HE COMES BACK OVER TO HIS SIDE OF THE VEHICLE GETS ON THE RADIO.
TATILIAN:  A NUMBER I CAN’T REMEMBER… I NEED AN AUTHORIZATION…
DISPATCH: WHAT’S UP.
TATILIAN: I HAVE AN UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE IN CUSTODY AND NEED AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW BLM 807 TO TRANSPORT TO ADA CO. JAIL.
Dispatch: ok. Hold on…
(WAITING)
DISPATCH: Ok! Authorized BLM 807 TO TRANSFER AND TRANSPORT TO ADA CO. JAIL.
TATILIAN: ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU SIR.
Tatilian to sharkey: I can’t take her because I am off at two am.  It would be overtime.  
(HE GETS OUT.  TATILIAN, WEISS AND SHARKEY GATHER AGAIN AND TALK)
TATILIAN GETS HIS CLIPBOARD AND STARTS WRITING. (THE PAPER TIME HE WROTE WAS 22:17 pm, THAT I RECEIVED WITH MY BELONGINGS AT THE JAIL)
He walks to my side of the vehicle opens the door again: (RADIO IN HAND) “UM HAZEL OR BROWN, POSSIBLE HAZEL… APPROX 6FT…”
Nicole: CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
TATILIAN: YES.
NICOLE: WHEN YOU BECAME A SHERIFF, YOU HAD TO TAKE AN OATH TO SERVE AND TO PROTECT, CORRECT?
TATILIAN: Yes and I am very proud to protect and serve!
Nicole: ok.  Then why aren’t you protecting me from these people who are harassing me for no reason at all?
Tatilian: Because I don’t believe they are harassing you.  The BLM doesn’t have codes or regulations that mandate you to provide an ID AND YOU DON’T HAVE TO; BUT WHEN I ASK YOU TO YOU KEEP REFUSING.
Nicole: because you haven’t clearly stated or articulated why I am arrested and clearly explained to me what my charges are!
Tatilian: I told you, OBSTRUCTION.
NICOLE: Of what though?
Tatilian: (this is fuzzy) obstruction of an investigation.
Nicole: nope! Not good enough for me.
(he closed the door again)
Again a few minutes later, he comes back and asks me to get out of the vehicle …
He helped me get one shoe back on and my long leg got stuck in the tiny back seat.  As I struggled with really tight cuffs on behind my back, he pulled my legs toward the door releasing the leg.  He stated:
Tatilian: Mam. I am transferring you to the custody of the BLM and they will transfer you to the ADA CO. JAIL.  WE ARE REMOVING THESE CUFFS AND PLACING YOU IN A BELT AND ATTACHING YOUR CUFFS TO IT.
WEISS PUT ME IN THE BELT AND CUFFS (FINALLY HE LOOSENED THEM!) He led me to a vehicle that had this seat in a cage and placed my seat belt on.
WEISS WAS TRAINING AS HE STATED HE HADN’T DONE A TRANSFER BEFORE.  SHARKEY SAID TO MARK MILEAGE AND WHEN CROSSING CO. LINES, HE IS TO RADIO DISPATCH AND LET THEM KNOW.  
STARTING MILEAGE WAS 5060 AND ENDED AT 5110. WEISS RADIOED THIS TO DISPATCH
WEISS: DISPATCH STARTING MILEAGE AND TIME.
NOT A WORD WAS SAID FOR THE ENTIRE TRIP.  OTHER THAN SHARKEY TO TEACH WEISS HOW TO OPERATE THE COMPUTER IN THE VEHICLE.  THROUGH LITTLE HOLES IN THE CAGE, I PROBABLY WAS SITTING IN THE DOG KENNEL PART OF THE VEHICLE. HEHE Anyway, I saw SHARKEY ENTER IN THE COMPUTER ABOUT THE BLM 807 AT SOUTHFORK AND ALDER, TRANSPORT... THE COMPUTER CLOSED.  
THE SILENCE CONTINUED…
WE ARRIVED  AT THE ADA CO. JAIL, AND SHARKEY INFORMED WEISS THAT THE JAIL KNOWS HER AS “ROBERTS807” AND SLOWLY PULLED INTO THE SALLYPORT.  
SHARKEY GETS OUT AND OPENS HATCH TO VEHICLE. EXPLAINS THAT WEISS AND HER MUST REMOVE THIGH TACTICAL HOLSTER WITH FIRE ARMS, TAZERS AND ALL MAGS. … WEISS DOES SO!
WEISS COMES OVER TO MY DOOR AND STATES THAT WE ARE READY TO BOOK.
HE THEN WALKS ME OVER TO THE DOOR WITH A SIGN THAT SAYS: HAVE ALL FIRE ARMS REMOVED AND PAPERWORK COMPLETED!”
The voice over the intercom stated agent Sharkey (they know her well apparently) please remove your mags.  Is your paper work done?
Sharkey: No! Hold on.  
Weiss: (to me) mam, please have a seat here. (on a bench)
Sharkey fills something out and then takes off her mags
Weiss: (to me) Mam, come we are ready.
Nicole: Ok, I stand up and electronic door opens and Weiss leads me in with sharkey following.
They stand there and converse with an ADA CO. DEPUTY.  
I don’t know his name. but he was really nice to me and said that we had an option to let the BLM agents go and he can work with me or I could sit in Jail until I see a judge on Monday.
Nicole: Officer, I have no problem working with you and thank you for being so nice to me.
Officer: no problem, LET ME SEND THEM ON THEIR WAY! Just stay seated here and the female officer here will conduct a body search.
Nicole: …
The two BLM seemed like they left…. The saga continues.
I get through another vigorous “pat down” and the question the female officer asked was why are you in here?
Nicole: I still don’t know.
Officer:  They say obstruction but they don’t say what for.
Nicole: I know  and that is why I am confused.
OFFICER: I NEED YOUR NAME, SOCIAL AND BIRTHDATE…. ADDRESS PLEASE. PHONE NUMBER AND EMERGENCY CONTACT.
NICOLE: I GIVE IT TO HER. ( SHE NEVER ASKED FOR MY ID)
Officer: ok. Well unfortunately it takes a long time to get out of here, are you willing to just bond out?  
Nicole: yes!..
Officer: (whispers to me) This is ridiculous…
Nicole: I know.
So I go to make my phone call.  Talk to my husband and sit down.  
The officer wanted to get my prints.  I was talking to him about the technology in those things now and he looked at me and said, why are you here?
Nicole: I don’t know, is finger printing normal?  Will this show on my record?
Officer: no, its just a crime database… it maybe a misdemeanor. But don’t quote me….
About 45 minutes later, there comes SHARKEY TROLLING THROUGH THE WAITING ROOM.  GLANCES AT ME AND EXITS.  
THOUGH I CAN’T SAY FOR SURE, BUT I THINK SHE GOT THE INFO SHE WANTED ON ME…. I WAITED FOR BAIL MONEY AND MY BELONGINGS AND I WAS LET OUT AROUND 240AM…
JUST FOR THE RECORD… I NEVER SHOWED MY ID TO ANYONE. THE ADA CO. DEPUTIES DIDN’T CARE ABOUT ID’S.  THE BOISE CO. SHERIFF MADE A FUSS THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
FOR THIS, I WAS HUMILIATED IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN AND EVERY SINGLE MALE PERSON WHO IS IN CAMP WITH ME.  THE BLM FEMALE FORCEFULLY GROUPED, POKED, PRODDED AND MORE IN MANY INAPPROPRIATE PLACES.  ON THE 2ND VIDEO IT IS HEARD THAT SHE ASKED TO TOUCH MY GROIN AREA TWICE…. WHY?????????????
THEN TO GET TO THE SALLYPORT…. MY PANTS ARE FALLING DOWN AND WEISS DOES NOT LET ME OR HELP ME PULL UP MY PANTS….
ALSO, QUESTION? IF BLM HAS NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY, THEN WHY WERE THEY ALLOWED TO TRANSPORT AN ASSUMED SUSPECT TO THE CO. JAIL?  
THE DISTRESS THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON ME AND MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS IS INCREDIBLY SAVAGE.  THERE WILL BE MORE AS I REMEMBER DURING THE DAYS TO COME.  

MY ADRENALINE IS STILL GOING, BUT I AM NOT A QUITTER.  I AM AN M.E.G.!

I AM A FEMALE, BUT I BELIEVE IN THIS WITH ALL OF MY HEART.  I AM A MINER AND WE ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER.  THANKS AND I WILL TRY TO GET THOSE LINKS WORKING VERY SOON.  SORRY FOR THE DELAY, WE ARE ON THE GOLD! Smile
NCrossman

Finally, we got the second video footage uploaded.  Please see my post before as i had edited the youtube link just now.  Sorry, I will try and get the first part footage tonight.  It is about 15 minutes long.  

Thanks for all your help.

HERE IS THE VIDEO #1 LINK THANKS AGAIN..

http://youtu.be/MNQdrLyEu88
NCrossman

ok everyone, sorry about the delay... i got it to work... HERE IS VIDEO #1...

http://youtu.be/MNQdrLyEu88

This is poor video with a lot of other chatter, but the audio here is a lot better than the audio on video #2.  However, this video is 7.5 minutes longer than video #2.  The reason #2 is awesome is because it is more visual than Audio on the scene.  Also, sometimes the Blm agent speaks really low as well as the Boise Co. sheriff.  YOu will have to LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THEM AS IT IS KIND OF LOW.  THANKS
1866

I'm still reading the blow by blow and need to watch the videos.

So far, I believe that Nicole handled herself better than properly. She knew the Mining Law where the BLM employee did not, who in fact, was incredibly far off base.

Regardless of the fact that this incident led to an arrest, I think Nicole handled herself perfectly. She uses the right terms, makes the correct challenges and asks the right questions. What's more, she documents it on film and has an additional witness. I don't know many miners who could have handled themselves as well.

Of course, as she has learned first hand, no amount of law stops corruption.

All in all, BLM LEO Sharkey has created some MAJOR problems for himself.

First things first, he claims that HE owns the minerals on the claim. That's a fraudulent assertion.

While I have seen BLM say "this is BLM land", this is the FIRST time I've seen an employee say "This is MINE."

Second, he claims that he has a RIGHT to infringe the United States Constitution because of FLPMA.

That is VERY IMPORTANT, because he has admitted that he is violating your rights. It's on video. Sound evidence that he willfully and knowingly violated your rights.

And as you know, FLPMA says no such thing about him having that right.

What we're seeing is a MAJOR case of abuse of lawful authority, a deprivation of rights under color of law and definite grounds for tort and criminal charges.

It's important that you fight this, because you are in an exceptional position here, Nicole, to make a big difference in the big picture.

Once I get the opportunity to review this more, I'll be in touch.
johncrossman

I think what had helped Nicole was the fact that she had her law binder that SWIMA (SOUTH WEST IDAHO MINING ASSOCIATION) had put together.  Since she is the secretary for SWIMA AND had compiled information from this site, some idaho sites and from people with incredible brains like Glindberg.  however you all have helped to educate this and we greatly appreciate this site beyond any words.  Thanks everyone.  

Nicole has a court date in BOISE CO. on Aug. 6 @ 930.  They say it is on an "obstruction" charge and to get her bail money back.  

Thanks for all the help.   Most importantly, we see why law binders are handy and useful.  She was looking up the law to show the officer on PUBLIC LAND VS. PUBLIC DOMAIN.  he at one point on the video even stated a comment about the cameras and the binders we all had out there.  So just know that technology can and is a great thing.  but education means you can fight back.
Woof!

I am very sorry for what has happened to you Nicole. From listening to the videos it appears you were arrested for not providing identification papers when requested.

There is no basis in law for law enforcement officers to detain or arrest anyone not engaged in a licensed activity for refusing to show paper identification. As the sheriff did not in any way show an intent to investigate a crime even a demand to orally give your name was unenforceable. To claim that your not "showing" ID could amount to "obstruction" is stretching the intent and purpose of the law well beyond any sustainable interpretation. In my experience I doubt the DA will proceed with any prosecution. If the charge is not dropped or dismissed you should prevail if you stay focused on the charge itself. All the above is predicated on two conditions, This is not to be viewed as legal advice and the transcript and video you offer are the entire record.

All that being said the charge of obstruction is not a mining issue. The transcript and recording you offer makes it clear that neither the BLM agent nor the Sheriff were challenging you or citing you for mining or making a location. Although it is clear the BLM agents are clueless about grantee rights and mining law they did not cite you for your mining activities.

From my perspective it appears the BLM agent became interested in your identity after you stated she was on your mineral claim and then refused to give her a copy of the location notice. From her statements she may be attempting to gather evidence for a charge of trespass. For that she would need a copy of the location and your name. Beware the backdoor "I was investigating a possible crime" as this would trigger a lawful requirement to provide your name. Keep in mind providing your name and presenting paper ID are very different acts in the eyes of the law. This is a very important point.

Enough of my conjecture about your obstruction charge. On it's face it is not a mining issue. What did concern me was the obvious misunderstanding of the mineral grant and the rights of the grantee on a new location. There are different levels of rights associated with the progress of your discovery and the possessory interest rights do not rise to the rights level of a provable valid mineral discovery. Asserting otherwise will not change that fact.

Unlike 1866 I was disturbed at the lack of knowledge presented in the video. I realize in the heat of the moment it's easy to lose sight of the whole picture but the presumed focus of this forum is to enable the miner to be secure in their knowledge of their rights as a mineral estate grantee. Simply defining the answer to the sixth question in our current lesson would have cleared up most of the misunderstanding of the law I viewed in those videos.

I have continually stated on this and other forums that a sound understanding of the mining acts is fundamental to our fight for our granted rights. This particular incident has made me aware that a course in general principles of law and in particular the most productive way to handle encounters with government agents may be an essential part of education for mineral estate grantees. I am not second guessing you Nicole but if you knew to ask "are you investigating a crime" in response to the officers request for ID the response to that question may have led to an much more secure outcome to this incident.

Woof!
1866

Personally, from the exchange, I don't see any evidence that Sharkey was investigating a trespass and that wouldn't stand up in a just court.

Nicole informs him that "the location notice is on that tree".

Sharkey does not ask to be shown the notice, but instead asks where the the corner markers are, when the notice (regardless of form/status) is the only lawful evidence of title.  Needless to say, Sharkey is clearly not looking to investigate a potential trespass. (In reality, Sharkey appears to be looking to challenge the existemce of a right).

Where a potential trespass problem WOULD have originated is if Sharkey had examined that notice and then asked for ID to clarify that Nicole was the owner. In that instance, a refusal to provide ID might raise questions about a trespass since requesting ID would then at least be a reasonable request. Then there would be grounds for an investigation, but even then, a refusal should still not trigger an arrest for "obstruction" without an explanation.

The fact still remains, even a documented investigation would not be grounds for an arrest over a refusal to provide ID. This isn't China (not yet), as the 4th amendment still protects the right to be secure in your papers, person and property and a warrant is REQUIRED.

As well, from the get-go, Nicole questions the very idea that Sharkey is in fact, bona-fide law enforcement. At no time does Sharkey actually validate any credentials beyond saying "I'm a federal agent" and then goes into a diatribe about "I own these minerals and I have authority to violate your rights".

Nicole again challenges Sharkey with "You are just a land manager".

From my perspective, Sharkey fails to prove lawful authority or jurisdiction and in fact, even admits that she doesn't know the statute number or particulars of the so-called crime. At no time does Sharkey provide any credibility or evidence that she is law enforcement and in fact, she acts in such a manner that would indicate that she is in reality an imposter.

While Nicole could have asked if this was an investigation of a crime, I don't think it's as important as it may it appear to be on the surface, for the simple fact that she is challenging the idea that Sharkey is law enforcement.

Could Nicole have handled herself differently or better? Could she have asked more questions. Sure.

I've been in this situation enough myself and reviewed enough video/audio to realize that no matter how well you handle the situation, you will always make mistakes and you can always do better. Seemingly obvious questions to ask don't get asked and obvious challenges to make don't get made.

Of course, keep in mind, the miner is always caught off-balanced, either just enjoying themselves or with their head stuck underwater. And in this day and age, the off balanced miner is off-balanced further by being faced by thugs armed to the teeth.

That said, I think she did alright and in fact, better than a majority that are placed in this position. I think the most important thing is that she challenged authority and jurisdiction and Sharkey failed to answer properly. And what's more it's documented.

While I agree that it's not really a mining issue, at the same time, Sharkey becomes aggressive the moment that Nicole identifies herself as a miner. This leads me to think that like Oregon, Idaho's US Attorney is instructing the agencies to "not take crap from any miners", to "go after the miners" and to "fear the miners".

Ultimately, Nicole is being treated like a 2nd Class Citizen for the simple fact that she is a miner.

Sharkey has BIG problems.
GoldPatriot

In the second video, as the Deputy started to handcuff Ms. Jailbird, when she asked, "what am I being arrested for", The reply from the Deputy I believe was, "for trespass".  This only adds to the problem of the state's case.

They say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  While true, it cuts both ways.

Although the videos are of poor quality, but better than not having video, it is clear that once the agent was advised by Ms.Jailbird, that "the properly was properly posted", unless the video was somehow altered, I think it's safe to say that the agent made no effort to confirm or deny the fact.  In addition, the agent could have very easily requested the responding Deputy to verify such posting.  But it is also clear, neither the agent or the Deputy cared what the facts were or what laws applied in this matter.

I can tell you from my own experience, Deputies do not normally make themselves as available, as quickly as we witnessed in this case.  Only two possibilities can explain the immediate availability of the Deputy to this scene.  Either the agent pre-contacted the Deputy and asked him to stand by, or the that the Deputy was in the immediate area by pure accident.  Given the time of day and the fact that the criminal trespass by the agent took place, only after Ms. Jailbird's husband left the site, lends itself to a preplanned confrontation.

This may have been another attempted  "Hefty" heist, gone bad because people were still in the camp.

But it is also fair to say, that both the agent and the Deputy were unprepared to have a knowledgeable woman, know her rights, the limits of federal agents and under what legal circumstances, a person is required to to comply with an unlawful command.  This would explain why the agent and Deputy felt it necessary to make an arrest in this matter, without first having a legal case to act upon.  Neither the agent or Deputy were smart enough to know when Ms. Jailbird called their buff, their only legal recourse was to leave the scene, all the better for their new found legal education.

But these two taxpayer paid idiots, not only showed their ignorance of the law and property rights, they showed a total disregard for civil rights, privacy rights and the Constitution.

As other have stated before, while it is a shame that Ms.Jailbird was arrested and now has to follow through on defending herself (kinda seems unfair to the two arresting idiots), this case opened new proof of the abuse so many have faced for years in the mining community.  As such, this case will shine a light on the corrupt actions of the federal agents and those state police agencies, that care more for the "brotherhood", than they do in enforcing the laws of this country and protecting the American public.

While I may sound like a broken record, I believe this case can not be concluded until the agent, Deputy and their direct supervisors are removed from employment and benefits.  For I see these acts as actions against this country, not just the miners.
johncrossman

So now that we have had a little time to review this case, what's the next step? We already have moved camp to avoid trouble, but we are still mining and will continue to do so.
NCrossman

I know this is the least of the matters here but I was wondering if this would be collusion of some sort?

And Den, you make a great point about the officer being so readily available when called.  Here is a little background. I was "arrested " in Garden Valley, ID, in BOISE County.  This town has maybe 300-400 people, give or take.  The Sheriff here is not always available, as they usually only have one that patrols over so much of Boise Co.  In fact, several weeks ago, (we don't get a lot of trashy "campers" there usually) but there was and come 1Am they were still blaring music, shooting guns and then speeding up and down the road. We called for an officer to come out and handle it. They never showed up because they didn't have anyone in the area.

Also, with my case, the response for the sheriff from when Sharkey called, was less than 5 min. to drive up. This is exceptionally rare in this county especially since it wasn't an emergency call. However, when my husband tried to call dispatch to figure out where I was being transported to, the dispatch just placed him on hold; never answering him again.  Which tells me that something was askew!

Honestly, I don't know what happened between the agent Weiss who just wanted to look at my setup in camp and then Sharkey who in my opinion impersonated an officer by being able to give me a body search and transporting me.  If this is the case of just handing assumed prisoners over to non law enforcement agencies because of an o.t. issue on the shift, then I want to be able to transport them and collect transportation fees ($25) from them. Smile
Woof!

1866 wrote:

The fact still remains, even a documented investigation would not be grounds for an arrest over a refusal to provide ID. This isn't China (not yet), as the 4th amendment still protects the right to be secure in your papers, person and property and a warrant is REQUIRED.


Thanks for your opinion 1866.
As per "Boxy" on the GPAA forum the Supreme Court disagrees with your statement above:
Quote:
I can't speak to this particular incident but every American should know their rights and responsibilities when encountering law enforcement.

If a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed or has been committed they have a right to ask for and receive identification. This means that the suspect must orally provide their real and full name.

There is no legal requirement to provide a drivers license unless the suspect is driving a motor vehicle.

There is no legal requirement to provide government ID or any other form of paper ID.

If the officer can not articulate a reasonable suspicion of a crime they have no right to detain you or demand identification (your name).

Not legal advice but here are the defining cases from the Supreme Court that back up that information.

Supreme Court Terry

Supreme Court Hiibel

Please note that the Terry case established the law on stop and identify (Terry stops) in 1968 - before many of you were adults. If you doubt the power of the question "are you investigating a crime?" you need to read Terry again.

As the charge is obstruction via a refusal to identify the (potential) court would be in error to consider facts not germane to the charge. Judges just hate being overturned on error.   Embarassed

As I wrote before you should prevail if you stay focused on the charge itself. Establishing that the arresting officer (the sheriff not the BLM agent) can not articulate a reasonable suspicion of a crime is the key element that will result in an acquittal.

Woof!
GoldPatriot

NCrossman wrote:
I know this is the least of the matters here but I was wondering if this would be collusion of some sort?

And Den, you make a great point about the officer being so readily available when called.  Here is a little background. I was "arrested " in Garden Valley, ID, in BOISE County.  This town has maybe 300-400 people, give or take.  The Sheriff here is not always available, as they usually only have one that patrols over so much of Boise Co.  In fact, several weeks ago, (we don't get a lot of trashy "campers" there usually) but there was and come 1Am they were still blaring music, shooting guns and then speeding up and down the road. We called for an officer to come out and handle it. They never showed up because they didn't have anyone in the area.

Also, with my case, the response for the sheriff from when Sharkey called, was less than 5 min. to drive up. This is exceptionally rare in this county especially since it wasn't an emergency call. However, when my husband tried to call dispatch to figure out where I was being transported to, the dispatch just placed him on hold; never answering him again.  Which tells me that something was askew!

Honestly, I don't know what happened between the agent Weiss who just wanted to look at my setup in camp and then Sharkey who in my opinion impersonated an officer by being able to give me a body search and transporting me.  If this is the case of just handing assumed prisoners over to non law enforcement agencies because of an o.t. issue on the shift, then I want to be able to transport them and collect transportation fees ($25) from them. Smile


Let us be clear in regards to the actions that must now take place by Crossman’s.  The first order of business should be, in my humble opinion, to get ready for the hearing on the charge of “Obstruction”.  

As to the charge of “obstruction”:  An act which tends to impede or thwart the administration of justice.

(1)  As a matter of fact and record, there was no case at the time the Deputy stepped into the situation.  There was no act, threat or information that the agreement between the agent and Ms. Crossman as concluded, required any law enforcement assistance, post agreement.

(2)  As a matter of fact and record, Ms. Crossman at no time was asked for, demanded of or denied the Deputy, as to her legal name.

(3)  As a matter of fact and record, the Deputy without lawful cause or reason and without explanation, several times over, made demand for Ms. Crossman’s “ID”, which under the US Constitution, she had every right to deny the Deputy, given the circumstances.  The demands of the Deputy therefore, was not made for identification purposes, but rather to an attempt to intimidate Ms. Crossman.  Intimidation is a crime.

(4)  As a matter of fact and record, had the Deputy acted professionally, ethically, impartially, and within the scope of his authority, read Ms. Crossman her Miranda rights and then questioned her as to the issues for which he had been called by the agent, as part of his professional responsibilities and code of conduct, he would have made some attempt to review the facts, before acting.  

(5)  As a matter of fact and record, had the Deputy professionally interview Ms. Crossman, he would have learned that the property on which he was standing, was in fact a legal and binding Mineral estate grant and not under the rules or concerns of the agent.  

(6)  As a matter of fact and record, had the deputy sought even a cursory investigation of the pertinent facts that would be standard among law enforcement, he would have had Ms. Crossman walk him to the legal posting, that is required under Congressional law.  Then and only then, does the law allow the Deputy to ask for “ID”, as to determine the identity of Ms. Crossman, compared to the information on the posting.  

(7)  As a matter of fact and record, the Deputy failed to uphold the law and even the most basic of standard investigational protocols.

( 8 )  As a matter of fact and record, not withstanding all of the above, Ms. Crossman repeated her right of claim, repeated her demand for an explanation of the Deputy’s actions and or demands, but at no time did the Deputy engage Ms. Crossman in a professional, courteous or with respectful conduct, nor did the Deputy respond with a plain, simple, or legal answers to her questions.

(9)  As a matter of fact and record, neither the agent or the Deputy has any legal training or understanding of the laws pertaining to the issues that were instigated by both the agent and Deputy.  If not for this fact, this case would not now be pending.

(10)  As a matter of fact and record, the Deputy, a male, upon arresting Ms. Crossman, with a female agent standing at the close, never the less conducted a hand search of his female prisoner, touching her breasts, groin and other personal areas, without regard for the prisoner’s rights or policies regarding male/female contact.  


I believe that there were several witnesses at the claim that night, that may be able to validate not only the words, conduct and the non professional attitudes and actions of the agent and Deputy, but can validate that the sounds and pictures recorded on the video are authentic, accurate, uncut, unedited, real time record of the statements and conduct of the agent, Deputy and Ms. Crossman.  However, prior to the trial, each witness must sign and have notarized, an affidavit as to their individual statements of fact in this case.  

Pictures of the camp, surrounding area and of the legal posting (readable) is an absolute for purposes of establishing an overall defense.

A series of pictures and video, together with individual affidavits showing (1) where the main encampment was located, (2) where on the claim was the agent parked, (3)  Where the Deputy was parked and (4) where the legal posting is located, in reference to 1, 2, & 3.  Use a tape measure to accurately measure the distances.  Pictures, video and audio recording should be of good quality.  You want to show the court how lazy the agent and Deputy were, in not at least looking at the legal posting.  

Do all of these items over prepare you for your trial?  Yes, but better over prepared than not prepared enough.

I’m sure others may add or take  away from my suggestions, but all of us here, are willing to help.  It is after all, why I created this site.
Woof!

2011 Idaho Code
TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 7 ARRESTS AND SEIZURES OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY -- SPECIAL OFFICERS
18-703 ILLEGAL ARRESTS AND SEIZURES.
 

ID Code § 18-703  Illegal arrests and seizures. Every public officer, or person pretending to be a public officer, who, under the pretense or color of any process or other legal authority, arrests any person or detains him against his will, or seizes or levies upon any property, or dispossesses any one of any lands or tenements, without a regular process or other lawful authority therefor, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

_________________________________________________

2011 Idaho Code
TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 7 ARRESTS AND SEIZURES OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY -- SPECIAL OFFICERS
18-706 UNNECESSARY ASSAULTS BY OFFICERS.

ID Code § 18-706 Unnecessary assaults by officers. Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000 and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year.

__________________________________________________

Assault - an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.

__________________________________________________

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/339/339.F3d.828.02-35119.html

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-00138-EJL. wrote:
* An arrest is unlawful unless there is probable cause to support the arrest. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). Crowell was arrested for "resisting and obstructing officers" pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-705. Under Idaho state law, a person obstructs an officer when that person "resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, in the discharge, or attempt to discharge, of any duty of his office." Idaho Code § 18-705. Defendant Dixon takes the view that Crowell obstructed Dixon by not telling Dixon his name and by refusing to allow Dixon to search Crowell's backpack at the Aryan Nations parade.16

38
That Crowell refused to give Dixon his name cannot be a basis for the arrest because Crowell has a "clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to identify himself." Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Bd., 279 F.3d 873, 881-82 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that statutes authorizing arrests for obstruction of justice are unconstitutional to the extent that the arrest is based on an individual's refusal to identify himself). In Carey, we also relied on our reasoning in Lawson v. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362, 1366 (9th Cir.1981), in which we explained that statutes authorizing arrest for a refusal to provide identification are unconstitutional because "the statutes bootstrap the authority to arrest on less than probable cause, and [because] the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest."


_____________________________________________

Carey
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1233078.html

Quote:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Spendlove's position would have known that Carey had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to identify himself, and that the Nevada statutes at issue, like the statutes in Lawson and Martinelli, were unconstitutional to the extent they allowed Carey to be arrested for exercising his rights.8  We therefore hold that Agent Spendlove is not entitled to qualified immunity and reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to Agent Spendlove in his personal capacity.


_____________________________________________

OK now go make them eat crow.

If you don't go on to sue the arresting officer for damages, false arrest, unlawful search and detention under the color of law don't ever expect my help or sympathy for your non-mining issues.  Shocked

Now let's get back to mining issues.

Anybody ready to tackle the first lesson on the 1872 thread?  Very Happy

Woof!
GoldPatriot

woof!  Great post and information.
NCrossman

Thanks woof! You have been more than gracious! I really appreciate it friend. Looks like crow is on the menu next month!

However, I think Ill be having some steak!
Woof!

Don't thank me yet.

You still have to make some choices and do a lot of work.

Demand discovery and move for a dismissal.

OR

Demand discovery, adjudicate and file suit against the loser Sheriff. Take his bond, his job and a good chunk of money.

One way you go free easy and the other you win big and nobody dares mess with you again.

Either way you need to stay focused on the facts and the law. There is only one charge pending. If you mess around with other (mining or administrative) laws you will lose. If you let the DA get off with a dismissal you will probably be facing a much better prepared assault from the same jokers in a week or a month.

As I wrote... choices.

Good luck.

Woof!
Woof!

Any update from your court date Nicole?
NCrossman

Yes! I get there and the court clerk stated that the county I was booked in didn't know when this county's judge was in. And therefore he was out of chambers yesterday. So she said she had the authority to have me sign a couple papers and to plead on the case. I plead not guilty and put the burdening on this county to furnish me with a public defender. She gave me a court date pretrial for Oct.1 and a jury trial of Dec 28... (don't quote me on that date verbatim. ) anyway that's the way small town America works I guess.

Thanks for asking woof!.
GoldPatriot

NCrossman wrote:
Yes! I get there and the court clerk stated that the county I was booked in didn't know when this county's judge was in. And therefore he was out of chambers yesterday. So she said she had the authority to have me sign a couple papers and to plead on the case. I plead not guilty and put the burdening on this county to furnish me with a public defender. She gave me a court date pretrial for Oct.1 and a jury trial of Dec 28... (don't quote me on that date verbatim. ) anyway that's the way small town America works I guess.

Thanks for asking woof!.


Maybe you could use a few hundred mining supporters in the courtroom... Laughing
NCrossman

GoldPatriot wrote:
NCrossman wrote:
Yes! I get there and the court clerk stated that the county I was booked in didn't know when this county's judge was in. And therefore he was out of chambers yesterday. So she said she had the authority to have me sign a couple papers and to plead on the case. I plead not guilty and put the burdening on this county to furnish me with a public defender. She gave me a court date pretrial for Oct.1 and a jury trial of Dec 28... (don't quote me on that date verbatim. ) anyway that's the way small town America works I guess.

Thanks for asking woof!.


Maybe you could use a few hundred mining supporters in the courtroom... Laughing


YES! YES, I COULD. And as I would love that! Even though this particular thing was NOT an actual Mining issue, it did start by an inquiring Blm warden about my suction recovery device.  

But just one more jab, we were forced to move off our new camp on Sunday night as we were issued a warning citation.  Nonetheless, lawsuits will fly soon. Let me fry one fish at a time and get through this "obstruction."

Thanks Den!
Hefty

NCrossman wrote:
Yes! I get there and the court clerk stated that the county I was booked in didn't know when this county's judge was in. And therefore he was out of chambers yesterday. So she said she had the authority to have me sign a couple papers and to plead on the case. I plead not guilty and put the burdening on this county to furnish me with a public defender. She gave me a court date pretrial for Oct.1 and a jury trial of Dec 28... (don't quote me on that date verbatim. ) anyway that's the way small town America works I guess.

Thanks for asking woof!.


I would have thought you were giving a court date, and no judge on that date, should have been dismissed. You were there- they were not.
Was the officer there???

Sounds fishy to me???  How can they give you a date of Oct 1 if they dont know when the judge will be there???
I would not have signed anything. I would have gotten a note from the clerk stating I was there with his/her signature and left it at that. Then the burden would have been on the court to contact you if it was to continue.

Just what i would have done.
NCrossman

Hefty, no the officer was not there. The clerk knew who I was when I went in.  I was thinking the same thing and think I will tell my public defender about your point as well. Also, I think they knew the judge wasn't going to be there and they could have called me and told me that. I know they notified the officer. Anyway, October 1 it is and I tell you what; I CAN'T WAIT!!! The sooner I get through this "obstruction " thing the sooner I can start kicking asses and taking names... legally speaking of course! Smile thanks Hefty...
Hefty

This was/is part of your rights...to be in front of a judge.

Criminal arraignments are a short hearing before a judge following arrest.  The criminal arraignment formally begins the courtroom proceedings of a criminal case against a suspect.  During the common criminal arraignment:

•Suspects are formally charged of one or more crimes by prosecutors in written statement, which now labels the suspect as a defendant
•Defendants are offered a chance to request court-appoint counsel
•Defendants offer a response to the prosecutor’s written statement, which normally consists of a not guilty plea
•Judges establish a tentative schedule for future courtroom proceedings, including preliminary hearing, pretrial motions, and potentially the trial date itself
•Judges establish bail amount, which may be revoked, raised, lowered, or decided as a release on one’s own recognizance
The Timing of Criminal Arraignments
Since the birth of the United States, a longstanding right of arrest suspects has been that of a speedy arraignment.  According to the Supreme Court, the case Mallory v. U.S, 1957 established that criminal arraignments must occur as soon as possible.  For most cases, this means suspects currently incarcerated must be arraigned within forty-eight hours, unless the dates fall on a weekend or holiday. State laws do vary; however, many suspects that have been bailed out of jail already can expect their arraignment date to be at least two weeks later.  Depending on your case, some attorneys will delay arraignments for longer as part of their own legal strategy, or they may elect to immediately seek arraignment and stymie the prosecutor’s amount of time to prepare a better case.  

The Process of a Typical Arraignment
Typically, arraignments are hectic situations in front of judges that will hear many cases in one day.  As the defendant, you are responsible to make sure you understand all legal proceedings and motions your attorney may make, and if you wish, you may always request the judge to explain unclear legal codes and other proceedings to you.  During an arraignment, no juries are present.  In the courtroom, one judge, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the defendant are present along with potential dozens of other defendants, their counsel, and other members of the public.  During the common criminal arraignment, any or all of the following may occur:

•Defendant receives a written notice of charges filed against them by prosecutor
•Defendant makes an initial plea regarding these charges, which is nearly always “not guilty”
•Judges appoint counsel for an indigent defendant, or defendants may request to continue the arraignment pending obtaining private legal counsel
•Arraignment judges will review a defendant’s bail status, which can be changed pending defendant requests and prosecutor requests
•A date is scheduled for hearing pretrial motions
•Dates are scheduled for upcoming hearings not related to pretrial motions
In limited instances, a defendant’s attorney may be allowed to appear at an arraignment without the defendant; however, attorneys typically cannot enter any plea during this period, unless a defendant lives outside the jurisdiction.  For the record, however, a judge will have to ascertain that these are the defendant’s wishes and that defendant fully understands the charges and potential punishments that face when having their attorney enter a given plea.  

In some limited circumstances, typically only in those cases being represented by a private attorney, a defendant can successfully argue the charges are invalid and should be dismissed.  The process of arraignment, which is the first time a defendant can request court-appoint counsel, is typically too early for a defendant to make any successful motion to dismiss, but it can occur and the dismissal is solely at the presiding judge’s discretion.  

Can I Represent Myself during a Criminal Arraignment?
It is possible for a defendant to represent themselves during their own arraignment.  However, this will most likely detrimentally affect their case.  From the initial arrest, law enforcement and prosecutors may have made critical technical mistakes dealing with your case, which a practicing criminal law attorney is trained to identify and use to dismiss your case.  Additionally, many defendants remain incarcerated prior to their initial arraignment hearing, which means they have no time to review documents, speak with prosecutors, or prepare any kind of defense strategy.  Likewise, most prosecutors will not even consult with defendants to initiate any kind of plea negotiation between arrest, initial arrest, or even following a continued arraignment. By accepting legal counsel at your arraignment, you can always dismiss this counsel later and go into future proceedings representing yourself.  In addition, you may lose some critical rights by making a plea, which could lead to dismissing your case, if you decline counsel during your arraignment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woof!

NCrossman wrote:
Yes! I get there and the court clerk stated that the county I was booked in didn't know when this county's judge was in. And therefore he was out of chambers yesterday. So she said she had the authority to have me sign a couple papers and to plead on the case. I plead not guilty and put the burdening on this county to furnish me with a public defender. She gave me a court date pretrial for Oct.1 and a jury trial of Dec 28... (don't quote me on that date verbatim. ) anyway that's the way small town America works I guess.

Thanks for asking woof!.


If the clerk had the authority to take a plea she had the authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute. You made your appearance today as agreed when you bonded out. Where was the prosecutor?

The pretrial is for discovery and motions. You didn't have to take a date - you could, and should, insist that the prosecutor make a full and specific discovery of the facts after he presents you with a bill of particulars. These are your rights along with the right to a speedy trial - which you appear to have waived today.

You don't have to wait for their trial to sue for false arrest under color of law. Waiting will just tip the court that you are more worried about what they might be able to do to you than getting justice for what they already did to you. Not a good basis for a complaint against the arresting officer.

A very good start would be to get the rules of court for their venue. You need to know the proper way to proceed so they don't try to confuse you with B.S. like the clerk did yesterday.

The court was open for business. You had a right to proceed without them. It was the prosecutor's duty to proceed at the time and place agreed to. His failure to do so was cause for dismissal and release of your bond. Read and understand the rules of court so they don't pull the wool over your eyes again.

I saw a lot of passion for your rights on that video Nicole. No matter how hard or boring this portion of your ordeal is you need to maintain that passion if you wish to receive the justice you so obviously believe you have a right to.

Lecture over. I do wish you the best of luck Nicole.  Wink

Woof!
NCrossman

ok! This is to everyone...

If I have the right to sue right now before a trial, does anyone know a good lawyer who is willing to take on a state case here in Idaho; especially against a corrupt and savage sheriff's department?  

I am not giving up.  I will be on the phone tomorrow with local lawyers, but if no one bites I don't know where to turn.

And Yes Woof!  I know this is the boring part of this ordeal, but I am not one to quit and I am not going to until I feel justice is served...

Thanks for the info!
johncrossman

Woff I would love to start filing lawsuits, however we can't just afford to get a lawyer and start suing. We are trying to learn as we go as fast as possible. I posted a while back what's the next step and all was returned was facts that are established. Now I have no problem filing lawsuits if any one on here would like to donate about ten grand to get started. Sorry we are trying our best.

John
Woof!

The courts are free and open to all. If you do not have the filing fees they can be waived.

I have never hired an attorney. I doubt I ever would. An attorney is an officer of the court. So are the prosecutor and the judge. Do the math on that equation.

I have been arrested five times in my life.

Three times I have had the charges dismissed with prejudice (big win). Two of those three times I received the apology of the court (really big win).

The other two arrests resulted in dismissal and release by the magistrate on Habeas Corpus. The magistrates found there was no probable cause for the arrest and I was released without charge.

I have some experience with being abused under the color of law. One of those Habeas Writs was written in my jail cell on my property slip. I presented it to the magistrate while I was in chains with two very Pissed Off cops holding me. Sometimes the courts need to be reminded who they are working for.

As I said the courts are free and open to all. It's up to you to use them. Nobody needs $10,000 dollars or a lawyer to get justice. A good knowledge of the process of justice is necessary. A very good place to begin getting that knowledge would be learning the rules of the court.

Following the instructions given by the prosecutor or the court clerk is part of going along to get along. Bonding out is a waiver of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Agreeing to future hearings and court dates is a waiver of your right to a speedy trial. Waiving your right to a bill of particulars before pleading is nearly the same as signing a loan contract with blank terms and amounts.

Courts work on a series of presumptions. They presume you know your rights. They presume they have jurisdiction. They presume you know the nature and cause of the charges against you. They presume you make your plea with full knowledge. All of these presumptions can be rebutted. If you challenge the presumptions it is up to those bringing the charges against you to prove their presumptions. If you don't challenge the presumptions it is presumed you agree that their presumptions are true.

If you look back over the series of events leading up to this day I think you will see that all the above presumptions are now established facts. Simply saying to a cop "I know my rights" pretty much covers all your subsequent actions. Following up by posting bond without insisting on your right to a probable cause hearing before a magistrate pretty much sets you on the path to a criminal court trial. I could go on but if you examine the facts I think you will understand how all this happens.

I wrote that you had a lot of work ahead of you. It seems you are a little behind on that work but all is not lost. You were still arrested without probable cause. None of your actions up to this point have changed that simple fact. If you concentrate on the facts you can and will prevail. What happened to you should not happen in this country. There is justice to be found in that simple fact. Don't be distracted from that unlawful act.

A good place to start getting caught up is to look up the words or phrases I wrote here that you don't understand well enough to teach another person. Then get the rules of court and study until you understand them. Get that bill of particulars and don't take any guff or delay from the prosecutors office. Insist on prompt and complete discovery. Learn how to cross examine a police officer. Insist on a speedy trial. This is a simple case and there is no need to delay no matter what the judge or prosecutor think is a more important use of their time.

None of this is legal advice. I am writing from experience and although your experience may be different the rule of law does not change for each case. Unfortunately justice must be taken in this country. It will not be handed to you. It is each man and woman's right and duty to ensure they find that justice. Please go find yours, for all our sakes.

Woof!
BSMiner

I am very curious about the final outcome of this whole case?
Woof!

Nicole accepted a public defender. She followed their advice to plead guilty. As such she was convicted of a charge by her own admission. I'm not sure what her final conviction amounted to or what her sentence was.

If she wishes, I'm sure she could fill you in on the details of what happened and why she chose the course of action she did.

We  each must choose our own path in life. We each must live with our decisions that take us down that path. I will not challenge Nicole for any decision she made - for only she paid the price of that decision. It was her choice to make and it's her life to live. I wish her well.

Too often these internet discussions are viewed as sort of an entertainment - a soap opera if you will. There is always much more to the real story of life than the brief internet version presented here and elsewhere.

Woof!
beebarjay

It is always easy to talk the talk...but harder to walk the walk!  This forum gives one a huge amount of information.  Unfortunately it does not afford individuals the opportunity to know how to walk through the legal system of hearings and courts.  Once one accepts "lawful legal advice" from licensed individuals who practice "Law" they can find the walk through the court system to be difficult.  Knowing the rules/regs/laws/policies regarding mining; one is left with the "quandary": how do I use it?  Information is a great tool: but knowing how to use it successfully in todays courtroom is not such an easy task!

Obtaining legal help is important....and obtaining/choosing that is not an easy task!

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home