[Music] let me make this simple for you I'm going to ask you this question one more time one more time okay two things are going to happen you are either going to answer my question or I'm going to hold you sarily in content and the court officer will bring you to a jail cell and we'll talk about it tomorrow you understand that so Mr McLoud Mr McLoud two things are going to happen you're going to answer my question or you're going to jail for summary contemp for not complying with the Court's request do you Mr MCL understand that the maximum penalty for the charge against you is 3 years in prison Andor $1,000 I don't understand the charges Court Tak in the C really and welcome to facts or [Music] frauds what you are witnessing is real the participants are not actors all right good morning we are on the record in the 53rd Circuit Court for the county of Shaban and Public Access both in the courtroom and also online and uh first up we've got case of people of the state of Michigan versus Trevor McLoud file 23- 6748 FH Mr McLoud good morning sir would you stop behind the bar please he's by councel he's not a license attorney I demand my right to councel Sure step behind the bar or you're going to be taken into cussin you're not an attorney so gather your things you can step behind the bar I'll explain it in a minute so Mr McLoud I first have to establish that you told me before that you wanted to represent yourself are you changing your mind on that matter I'm bringing in my own councel from the tribe yes is he an attorney licensed in the state of Michigan he doesn't have to be yes he does to to practice in this court so you're not wanting to represent yourself then am I hearing that correct you want an attorney I have a right to counsel yes you do doesn't have to be lense attorney does no it doesn't about in a courtroom who do you think gets to decide that question you or me so me and so you you may be represented by an attorney but it has to be a member of the bar St now I I can tell you I I read your motion and Mr bel's uh reported appearance which is not authorized and it seems to me that perhaps you want him just to explain some things to the court about the consent decree that's correct now for that purpose in your motion you may call him as an expert witness on that is and he can offer testimony on your behalf as a witness okay but I can't allow him to make arguments on your behalf or represent you in the case well that's why we puted in for limited liit so so you just want him to offer some testimony about that stuff sure okay so we can do it that way and and he can testify a witness there's no problem with that assuming that he meets the requirements for a witness and you know have to follow the rules of evidence on that all right so with that in mind then I need to confirm are you still Desiring to represent yourself yes yes you are okay all right so we are here on um your motion to suppress um there is in the court file a preliminary examination transcript so I did have an opportunity to review that and I'll take you initial notice of those proceedings um so then I suppose we can take supplemental proofs um so Mr McLoud I guess at the preliminary examination the uh conservation officer testified about his actions and observations that day did you wish to have him offer further testimony about that or do you want me to just rely on the transcript of the prelimary exam I the transcript okay Mr uh Mr Juliet do you wish to supplement that in any way or just very briefly and I believe he's on Zoom for Testimony that's okay okay um the uh any objection to that Mr McLoud to what's that I object what's the basis for that objection that his testimonies I've already got proof of purgy here well that doesn't that doesn't tell me why he shouldn't be allowed to offer some additional testimony because it's it's because it's it's not valid don't trust it he already Li he's what he's liing well again that's a different that's a different problem I mean if if a witness if a witness testifies faly and gr that's you know serious problem for um but the are saying they want to offer some additional testimony by the correction officer so I'll allow that and then you can you can cross-examine them and then you can present Witnesses if see here good morning sir uh can you tell me your name Alexander bah Mr bis would you please raise your right hand for me you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall for got yes okay go ahead Mr jul Officer can you hear me all right yes sir uh can you state your full name and spell your last name please Alexander bis b o u r GE e o i s thank you where uh where do you work I currently work for the U Michigan DNR and the law enforcement division and how long have you been working there since August of 2022 were you working on September 4th of 2023 I was are you familiar with the the defendant in this case Mr McLoud yes sir did you have contact with him that day I did what was the reason for the contact we originally made contact with him because he had expired boat registration on his vessel uh upon making contact with him it it led to the the arrest of him for voting on The Influence okay was there anything else that that Drew you drew uh your attention to the defendant yes uh we originally made contact with them at the boat launch hang on hang on there there was an objection what's your objection to that question they're trying to add testimony to the statement in original testimony that's not stated try to change the story well they are allowed to present you know testimony here today and and I I agree that's exactly what they're trying to do they're trying to supplement the record and and give me some additional information that wasn't uh in the attachments or in the U in the prior transcript that is that is permissible just like you're going to be able to offer further testimony from what you gave in the district court um so I'll take all those things into account so that objection over ruled go go ahead I'll just repeat myself officer what was there anything else that Drew your attention to the defendant yes when uh the defendant docked at the the dock along the river uh when he got off the boat U myself and the other conservation officers we realized that um he had difficulty getting off the boat that he had to hold the post to get off of it uh once he had gotten off the boat and he walked towards the bathroom he stumbled and swayed up the dock and ramp uh and stumble and SED on his way back that's when I made contact with him about the boat registration um and once he I asked for the registration for the vessel which obviously would be inside of it uh he struggle to to put his sandals back on longer than a normal person would it took him about 10 seconds to put on a simple sandal um and then once he got into the boat uh I noticed that he had lack of fine motor skills that would be um common with somebody that's under the influence I notic that he has certain speech um and then he also uh I could tell that that he showed just general signs of someone that might not be uh completely sober okay um as part of your training in in uh as a con conservation officer do you receive any training in in ow related uh voting inance I guess yes we're we're trained in both normal Motor Vehicles and then I myself and trained in Boi okay and before you uh I guess approach can you explain the timeline of events did you notice any signs of intoxication before you made contact with the defendant I object hang on there's an objection what's the uh what's the objection what's that um I'll sustain that maybe you can ask him when did you notice any officer when did you notice the signs of intoxication I noticed that as soon as he tried to get off the vessel when he was stumbling and was having difficulty getting off of it the water wasn't uh rough or anything that like that that would cause any type of equilibrium imbalance uh it it was a calm Flat River so uh the defense of that would wouldn't be valid in my opinion uh so when he stumbling to get off the boat and then stumbling up the dock it would show that he would be impaired on something rather than from the water where were you when you noticed this five feet away from on the other side of the dock I had clear clear vision of it all the way up the the ramp too and did you approach him after you noticed these signs of intoxication yes sir did he when you made contact with him did he inform you that he was a tribe of a a member of a Native American tribe no sir nor did he advise me that he was in the hang on hang on hang on that there was an objection and Mr McLoud it might help a little bit if you um if you would State your objections a little more loudly um so that the uh witness who's testifying remotely can can hear that um the question was did he present did he tell you that he was of Tri and there was an objection the reason he's leading the witness he's leading the question well I think that that I'll overrule that that doesn't suggest what the answer is he's saying did he tell you the answer could be yes and could be no so that'll be overruled go ahead officer bis did Mr McLoud inform you uh of his membership in any Native American tribe or band no sir he didn't advise me that he was tribal nor did I see him in the active fishing and either way as a conservation officer I have the right to make contact with him and upon that contact I would have observed his signs of intoxication so the I'm going to strike every hang on hang on you've you've done way more than answer my question I'm gonna strike everything you said after no okay right just answer the question thank you all right go ahead so can I can I just repeat yeah no you don't have to I mean it's asked answered I heard the answer no he didn't tell them okay go ahead did you see any evidence of of fishing related activity no sir I have no other questions all right Mr McLoud do you have questions for officer brah yes go ahead have you ever seen walk before I'm sorry can you repeat I'm sorry to hear you have you ever seen me walk ever seen you walk yeah no sir the first time I make contact you ever seen you in in person was on that day are you aware that had double hit replacement no sir okay so you made a determination that you what's your basic for comparison of how I walk and what my gate might look like I would base it off of a normal human being uh I mean we see people walk every single day so if someone swaying stumbling up a ramp walking side to side along the ramp having struggling to use fine motor skills just to put with their foot in a sandal I would assume that would show signs of intoxication but you never asked if I was disabled or previously disabled no but that would have been part of my uh questions upon doing the test I would have done a medical screening uh which you refused to do so you state in your testimony that your partner fell on top of me yes sir when during the the the wrestling to get your hands behind your back yes he fell on top of you while you're resisting you also state in your testimony that your partner advised me to put my hands down the back but I refuse you did yes sir y you also State your testimony that your partner was able to actually just cff me without me complying how did that go down I'm sorry I couldn't I couldn't hear up at the cff part but what was that your partner was you said you you st your testimony that your partner was able to actually just cuff me without me complying how did that happen explain that to me uh he grabbed one arm cuffed it and then uh you refused to comply you continued to keep your other arm away from him you actually were laying on it with the underneath your chest and he ended up able to roll you over grab your arm and then pull behind your back and cuff you without you ever complying you also State your testimony that you advised me that I was under arrest for voting Under the Influence is that correct yes sir when did you advise me to that before we even entered Your Vessel uh we told you to step out that you'd be under arrest for voting under the influence and you stated no which would be further resistance because it was a lawful order no f question any redirect no right uh thank you officer um so do you uh do you wish the officer to well we should probably remove him from the meetings in case there's uh a trial all right so officer Bersa thank you for your testimony here today and your excuse thank you sir all right any additional proofs from the people no than okay Mr McLoud do you wish to present any Witnesses in support of your motion Mr press no oh yes I like Mr Bel okay Mr Belfy you want to come up to the witness answer and for the record I think it should be Dr oh okay I'm sorry okay that's fine I didn't I forgot Dr dely please raise your right hand for me do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth absolutely do okay you and can you state your name for the record and spell your last name for us please uh my name is Dr Phil Belfy and the spelling is b l l FY okay all right thank you Dr Belfy uh Mr McLoud go ahead with any questions you have Mr Bel um could you explain to the prosecutor who holds jurisdiction and could you give me that one piece of paper inclusion hang on there's an objection here so Mr McLoud um I mean you're doing fine and representing yourself I guess uh I'll sustain that objection how you how you need to proceed with an expert witness first is have asked Dr Belfy some questions about um his uh education background in the area and then um and then the prosecutor will have a chance to do some follow-up questions if they see fit and then you would you would ask the court to uh recognize Dr belfrey as an expert in a particular area and uh and then if uh if that's accomplished then you can ask him his opinions in that area so why don't you go ahead and just start and ask him a bit about his background Mr Belfy uh Where do you um what is your a of expertise uh I have a PhD in American Indian studies it's not called that but that's what it is and I am professor of American American Indian studies for Michigan State University I'm retired now but I'm professor ameritus of American Indian studies and I've also been qualified and admitted to practice Tribal Law in the Sous St Marie tribal court and I my entire academic career has been involved with treaty issues and court cases and all those kinds of those types of things so I would Al I don't want to be real Vain about it but I would consider myself to be an expert quite frankly he Mr do can you explain me who holds jurisdiction over the interpretation of the 20 I haven't even heard the question so goad explain to me who holds jurisdiction over the the interpretation of the 2007 consent okay and and now there's an objection he hasn't been qualified as an expert okay so maybe ask so so well I guess let me just handle it this way Dr Belfy can you tell us um there's been a question about the 2007 consent decree do you know what that is I most certainly do yes can can you tell me what that is uh the state of Michigan and the federal government had a c case called USV Michigan that dealt with fishing rights a Great Lakes commercial fishing more or less and there was always a question about the Inland rights that was not addressed during that cour case and the court case took a long time etc etc but uh when Mike Cox was the Attorney General of the state of Michigan I can't remember what year that was hang on you you're kind of telling me your thoughts about I'm asking more General so so this is a a consent decree between the state of Michigan Government the consent decree is is three parties all the tribes in the 1836 treaty area the state of Michigan and the federal government they all came together to sign that consent decree in 2007 okay and what's your familiarity with that decree have you have you read it studied it have you taught it as a professor what's your familiarity with that all the above okay yes and it became a that and other issues of course became part of my dissertation so I studied all that very okay very deeply all right go ahead Mr MCL I guess as he qualified I'll stipulate to his qualifications okay in what specific area in well well I guess the court would recognize Dr Belfy as uh as an expert witness in the area of uh uh uh Native American studies um to offer his opinion in that area as pertaining to the 2007 consent decree okay so go ahead Mr can you explain to the court who holds the sole jurisdiction or re interpretation of 201 consent decree okay and I'm taking it out of my memory you got the piece of paper there it's a the first area of the consent decree talks about jurisdiction and then there's three paragraphs there and paragraph 1.2 lays out exactly who has jurisdiction over the interpretation Etc of that consent degree anything that has to do with the consent decree when it's being questioned the only people that have control over that is the federal court in Grand Rapids they're the people who did the the original fishing rights case and they also did the consent agree and negotiated all that process it took many years to do all that and so they retain jurisdiction over everything that deals with that consent decree so some mention in the decree about you can not have uh I don't know the number of it but you don't need to have your boat registered if you have fishing gear on the boat that's in the consent degree and if there's an interpretation that needs to be done on that question then it has to go to the federal court they have the jurisdiction and I don't want to say anything disrespectful about the prosecuting attorney but that's not part of his role that is a federal it's a federal case the federal consent decree the state of Michigan agreed to it in other words they agreed that the federal court has jurisdiction over the interpretation and everything that's in that decree is under the federal jurisdiction so you know I don't it's not my position of course to say whether or not Mr Julia can so Mr McLoud are you uh okay so this is the cover page and Page seven of the consent decree we staple this and Mark this as a proposed exhibit for defense one Mr Juliet you had a chance to see that if I could just briefly take a [Music] look yeah yeah defense one and I think Mr McLoud is offering that exhibit into evidence any objection no all right exhibit one is is admitted and uh it's the upper page of consent and Page seven of it which does have jurisdictional paragraphs um indicating that the court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties in subject matter of this action to enforce the decree to resolve disputes arising under it okay continue Mr okay any cross-examination uh yes you said you you've the talk classes on the consent decree before I I did not teach a class on the consent decree I mean there's no such thing but I did half of my load at Michigan State University was involved with Native issues they let me teach half of my load in Native American studies courses and every every course that I teach in Native Studies the beginning of every course is the the treaties and the and the discussion about the treaties and the treaty rights so the fishing rights case and the Inland consent decree they're an integral part of everything that I do okay um I think you read the consent decree uh I've read the consent decree several times okay I have to be honest though when it talks about how many fish you can take out of a particular Lake I don't have that in my mind but all of the the preliminary stuff all the arguments that deal with individual rights under the consent decree I know them very well okay so you know that a tribal member who is subject to certainment does not have to present he must possess evidence of fishing or hunting or traing here to uh Shield himself from that registration requirement correct uh the langage of it and I don't remember the number and might have a copy of the pap 24.4 24.4 it's it says that the boat it doesn't have to be like putting the pole in the water but there must be fishing GE on the boat okay and so they just simply have to possess it they simply have to possess it yes okay that's what the consent that's the language of it then I should give a little bit of an asside part of my research I talked to people who negotiated the consent degree it took them four years send the consent degree the reason it took four years to do that is because literally and this is how it was told to me every word had to be discussed we put the word shall or do we put the word May and that might take two weeks to figure out is that word we're going to use which one are we going to use what's the consequences of this because this is this is an important issue it's a treaty thing so it's it's at the top of the list treaties of the sueme law of the land so when it came to the word possess I'm going to assume that that's what they meant you have to have a fishing pole in your boat a net or whatever it is that you're going to use for your fishing it's got to be in the boat someplace okay thank you I have other questions you have additional questions for Dr I don't hey Dr doia I have a couple so um you say that that you've uh you serve as a tribal advocate in Sue tribal courts correct uh I no longer serve there because they revoked by commission which is frankly is still under dispute okay but you have in the past I have in the past I have the documents do you have do you have familiarity with um with how the tribes that are parties to the consent decree have uh implemented um the provisions about boat and vehicle assile registration in other words my question is do the do the tribes issue their own registration for any of these vessels or not that I'm aware of so so in your have you have you represented in tribal courts uh I'm sorry to what to trying to interpret the consent to be oh I'm not trying to interpret the consent I'm asking Dr Belfy his his opinion about about say the court is allowed to ask questions so so Dr belie do um that the tribes don't issue um registration for vessels uh not that I'm aware of no but they do issue if you're a tribal member like Trevor they issue cards yes that show if you're a tribal member you have the right to do whatever it is that you get a permit for all right do you have any knowledge about um um if non-rival law enforcement sees a vessel with no registration or expired registration do you have any experience or knowledge based on your studies so the consent degree about um how that's handled how law enforcement is supposed to recognize if something is is a tribal vessel not subject to it or a non-tribal vessel subject to it and if you don't know that's fine May that's a question for me to ask the party's arguments but but if you had any knowledge about that I do have some knowledge in that yes uh if the non-tribal law enforcement officer La officer the instant that that person or anybody discovers that the person is a tribal member that's when the jurisdiction ends according to everything that I've read and everything that I've learned when it's cross deputization if for example TR with was taken downtown taken to this building I suppose people who were in the building presumably knew that he was a tribal member it was at that moment that the jurisdiction transfers from this particular cart to tribal cart and that's what the cross deputization is on the top all right thank you any further questions as question Mr McLoud no further questions any further questions as result thank you Mr McLoud do you have any additional Witnesses you wish to present or no thanks all right any help Mr Juliet No thank Mr McLoud it's your motion to dismiss I have reviewed your your motion and your reply to the prosecutor's response but now you also have opportunity to make any argument you want in supporting motion but I'd like to um submit this I was called to play a disc for the court today what is that it's it's a a video of me stepping or me being on the boat and the officer Ste down to the boat and me put my hands down back is that is that like is there a body cam footage no it's a Snapchat but what my guests filmed okay has the prosecutor had an opportunity to review yes they had it since September okay okay um any objection to that being admitted no that's fine okay so if we can uh Mark that as [Music] Def well what we could do is um could take a five minute recess for me to um what Can I submit this along with it so you can take this in recess with you well what is that this is part of Officer bge's testimony from my preliminary hearing well I have the transcript you can just tell me what page it's page 16 and it's line 78 78 and well there's other lines in there but that's that's the main one I want you to look at okay page 16 starting at line seven the court can take traditional notice of the uh Records in the court file including the preliminary examination so you want me to kind of view the video in context for this testimony and compare the two yes okay so what we could do is I can take a five minute recess I I can't play it on this computer but I'll go and watch it and and come back and five minutes later all right thank you I've had a chance to watch uh defendants exhibit two and uh compare it to the testimony we officer on page 16 of the preliminary examination transfer Mr McLoud go ahead and make any any additional arguments you want and support your motion well I think that we need to impie that whole officer's testimony because he's clearly lying from the facts of what happened that day and he's lying under oath which is perger so uh not that's my motion is to impeach everything that he said right thank you Mr Juliet um I guess I would just first uh take note that this is a what I view is motion to suppress based on constitutional stop the case on point is Terry versus Ohio states that a temporary investigative detention may be based on Reasonable Suspicion an officer reserves unusual conduct which leads the officer reasonably believe in light of this experience that criminal activity may be a fo the officer testified that he was on control Shan River um that he observed the the defendant's registration to be out of dat upon further observation he observed what he testified to be signs of intoxication um I think that Al satisfies the Reasonable Suspicion test as to the I any reason why is because I'm showing that this officer his testimony can't be trusted okay so how can we how can we trust the fact that he's he's saying I observe this or I observe that when he's lying okay that that's more in the form of a rebuttal argument than than an objection so Mr Juliet can make his argument then you as the moving party you'll have a chance to make a Reb AR so just as to the Inland consent decree um I did misquote in my original response that the defendant must present evidence I did uh submit a amended response he only needs to possess that EV evidence um when the when the officer uh made contact with the defendant he had no idea he was Native American he didn't didn't see any fishing gear anything like that so I don't think that the Inland consent decree really Shields the dependent in this case well well can I ask you so do do you concede them so let's say they make contact with them and uh they learn that he's uh that he's a member of the are you m of the suit tribe he's a member of the suit tribe um they can't write them a ticket for the unexpired or for the expired registration correct uh well I can answer that in two ways based on my understanding is that he would be shielded from uh civil infraction ticket if he's if if the there's possession of some sort of fish or something like that but based on Dr bel's testimony I think that unless the the the DNR officer has some knowled that he's a a member of a Native American tribe I don't think that can be imputed to the officer to just automatically know that he's a member okay can I ask you have you seen this uh sixc video clip yes I have what am I to make of the fact that um that appears to depict something different from what is described the officer testimony page 16 well I I don't think it it describes that at all I mean that's a that's a video that they're on the dock the r happened in the boat so this is in the boat and he he the video shows Mr McLoud standing there talking to the officers engaged in some conversation with them the officer steps aboard stands behind them and grabs Mr mccloud's hands and both hands are behind are being brought behind his back certainly by the officer but with no apparent resistance from Mr M okay well to that if the Court's going to I guess ask that question that's a question of fact uh the right to resist an unlawful arrest um that a jury or bench trial no I'm saying I didn't see any resistance testimony that he did resist I mean the video is only a few seconds long um thank you Mr McLoud and B like like M Bel testified this this this document document is not open to interpretation by anybody in this room has to go to the Western District of Michigan and and certainly not Mr Juliet has any qualifications to make any interpretations on thank you well Mr McLoud has filed a motion to suppress the evidence um because of uh essentially an illegal stop or search or seizure some of his arguments uh sort of blend into a a motion to quash for lack of evidence as well in terms of the suppression so there is uh evidence in the record now and testimony about this 2007 consent Mr McLoud is a of a tribe that's a party to that consent degree that would Shield him from um from prosecution for uh or from laws regarding registration vessels uh if he [Music] possesses evidence of of fishing or whatnot we're not here on an on an expired uh registration m if we were Mr McLoud May well have valid defenses to that what we have is uh a non-tribal law enforcement officer sees a vessel underway on navigable Waters and sees an expired registration dat so I think that gives the officer Reasonable Suspicion to make contact with that the operated that vessel and and that consistent with Dr bel's testimony as well that they can make the contact and then as soon as they know there's a issue then you know at some point you know that uh that their jurisdiction to enforce that you know may divest and I understand Mr McLoud is saying well they never gave me an opportunity to tell them that because we're right in the middle of it you know right from the initial contact um but be that as it may I think the the uh the testimony including from Dr Belia is law enforcement they don't know if something's a tribal vessel or not whether it's operating under this consent decree or not they see a vessel on the Waters of Michigan with an expire registration they're allowed to make contact with that person to find out what's going on the officer did testify uh that um even before making contact with Mr McLoud they observed what they thought to be uh evidence of impairment so that's the initial contact is not a constitutional violation nor is it a violation uh it doesn't appear to be a violation of consent free either they the initial contact and um there's evidence of the impairment right there so so now they're beginning an investigation for impaired operation of a vessel I object your honor I want you to take a look at the MCL the Michigan compile law that has to do with this oh yeah that you're not you operating and I've reviewed that argument that Mr McLoud says he wasn't operating and he's correct that he wasn't operating The Vessel at the time they made contact with right yeah doed and tied off and shut up ke Rob right but they did the test I object to their testimony to be invalid they're lying that proof of it well I've heard the argument I let you make your arguments and now I'm making my room the um lost my train so they make they they don't by the time they make contact Mr McLoud is not then operating the desel but they did testify that they saw him observe it that he's at the helm uh it's under throtle um because the the flow of the river would mean that it wouldn't it would have to be under under throttle to approach the dock in that direction they saw him with his hand at the helmet at throttle so they observe him operating they're observing operating as a beer in my hand or drinking I need to make my ruling I need to make a record without this is back and forth okay but I want I want to make part of the record too is that we were sitting at that dock drinking alcohol and beer before those guys pulled up to us so there's no way they can determine well that's a different issue doing this one at a time so that they're allowed to they observe from operating The Vessel they're allowed to make the initial contact because of an exper registration before as they're making that contact they see evidence of some impairment and begin an impaired operation of a vessel investigation that's all off and uh so so for that reason the motion to suppress evidence for an unlawful stop or seizure uh is denied and to the extent it's a motion to quash the information are dismissed because of a lack of evidence of resisting or lack of evidence of operation um you know there's at least probable cause of that to support the bind over from the testimony he's resisting um if the the commands to leave leave the vessel um they do complete an investigation for the impairment now Mr McLoud certainly has some evidence to support his defenses uh including the video that I watched that does I mean it's just a snip at a time so that doesn't I can't dismiss the charges based on that video Mr M because it doesn't show me everything they happen it shows you the officer perjured well you're going to get to show that to a jury sure okay and um so that's where we're going yeah so so I'm going to deny your motions to dismiss or suppress based on the law because the the officers had a right to make contact and they say that the evidence of impairment was evident on on that initial content but these issues are all things that you can present uh at a jury Tri so um do you wish to represent yourself at a jury trial or do you want a councel um for for that I'm not going make that decision right now okay well what we'll do is we can that's fine we'll we'll um have you come back in a couple weeks and uh then at that point if you um want a jury trial I'll give you a date if you want an attorney you can hire one it's it's got to be you know need I'm G need some more time in a couple weeks because I'm going to be appealing this decision which I'm gon want right okay um that's fine motion for time to file an interlat that's fine that would be you'd have to file that to the Michigan court of appeals and you certainly have that right so what I'll do is um I have these uh handwritten docket call orders once so schedu for do I'll write on here defendants motion to suppress is denied the reasons stated on the record and your time frame to file that inory appeal would flow from today's date then this will be the written order you can get a copy from the court um I'll have you come back and um we could put it out a little bit I could put it out to March 19th and that way then um if you have filed the interlocutory appeal by then then we'll probably be talking about whether we want to State a case or not um and if you decided not to then we can talk about whether you want a jury trial time to so we'll come back March 19th at 9:00 a.m. anything further Mr McLoud on today's record well I'd like to submit uh this page 16 oh actually I'd like to submit all my exhibits for my motion to suppress into evidence for go Tri okay well they are they are in the court record and I did take those into account in the motion so those can be considered as uh evidence I considered in the motion and that would be part of the record on appeal if you understand um I can't really ADV you how all that works but on an inter Batory appeals the court of appeals doesn't get the court filed they only get that when there's appeals after a case is done so if you're filing an interlocutory appeal you got to file an application and you have to attach to that application all the stuff you want them to see they won't get the record un plus they ask for it all right so otherwise we'll see it all back on March 19th at 9 a.m. that G it's like a casting call for Ripley Believe It or Not in that place and thanks for hanging out with us UNF factur frauds make sure you hit the Thumbs Up Button you're subscribed and ring that Bell for notifications so next time prier a video you can be in the live chat with everyone else and leave a comment in the comment section tell them what you think and a huge thank you to all of our facts or frauds channel [Music] members and if you're still hanging out thank you I appreciate you all make sure you hit that Thumbs Up Button you're subscribe and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think until next time I'll see you [Music] soon