[Music] now case laws don't exist I mean not don't exist that's stupid I mean case laws are bull crap uh they have other case laws where when uh you try to use the ones that are there that you think and believe that it's supposed to protect you well they have other case laws that they've used to go against those case laws SOA the the cas La is there to support us isn't there to support us and welcome to facts or frauds call people versus Ryan John Hart file 24- 4935 FH Ryan people see appearing on Mr har I have somebody in my hearing room listed as Ryan Hart State your name for the record please my name is Ryan John family of heart I don't have anyone on my docket listed as Ryan John family of heart I have an individual listed is Ryan John Hart that's either you or it's not you get to tell me whether or not that's your name if it's not then I need to call a different matter and bring somebody else into my hearing room I am the I and the representative of that entity yes that's not an answer sir your name is either Ryan John Hart in which case you're invited to participate in the proceeding today as Ryan John Hart or you're not Ryan John Hart in which case I have no use for you to be in this hearing today so tell me your name so that I can determine whether or not you're the proper person to be called in this case my name is Ryan John Hart may I ask a question your honor no you may not Mr Hart this is not a complicated process in this process does not get less uncomplicated when I call a case I start by identifying the parties that are to the case when I'm confident I have the correct parties to the case I proceed then and decide how to go forward in this case your difficulty and I think intentional difficulty is affecting the ability of the court to be able to proceed and to conduct its business that's relevant to a lot of points but most importantly it's relevant to a pending motion that your attorney filed presumably on your behalf but I sense that it's not only on your behalf it's also on your attorney's behalf and so we're going to take up that motion but your difficulty in basic things like telling me whether or not you're the party to a case is thwarting the Court's ability to timely get its business done I'm turning to the motion now that's before the court today which is the motion to have attorney withdraw and to have you represent yourself Mr Hart the court does not find that motion to be well placed and I'm not going to prevent it and the reason is is there are several steps that need to be taken in order for you to be able to assert your right to represent yourself first and foremost I must find that your assertion of that right is unequivocal I don't have that what I have is your attorney's motion and I recall very clearly and plainly um the last couple of hearings that we've had a couple of hearings ago I had findings that I made based upon a competency and criminal responsibility examination you were found both competent and criminally responsible by the court after assistance from the center for for forensic psychiatry and after an in-depth intervention and interview by them I made the findings your attorney agreed with them and the prosecutor agreed I have not once heard you make any type of unequivocal requests at all what I instead heard when I consider whether or not there's an unequivocal request for you to represent yourself is your attorney explained to me I think this was two or three hearings ago now that he was somewhat conflicted and these are not his exact words but this is what I recall from it he was some F inflicted you had wanted him to file various different motions which the attorney did not find were supported by law and the communication that I had in response to Mr Seager again was some version of this I told Mr Seager that as the attorney he and he alone chooses which motions are to be filed and which are supportable by fact or by existing case law or by the extension of existing case law if he can't make those arguments that are good good faith supported by law or an extension for the law then he's not permitted to file the motion itions it was at that point that Mr Seager then suggested that another solve for him could be that you could represent yourself in other words the implication that with Mr Seager was making is that if you were representing yourself you would not be constrained in the way that he is it would allow you to file whatever frivolous motions I'm using that word Mr Seager didn't whatever frivolous motions you wanted to and so the request to have you represent yourself as made through your attorney is not found number one by the court to be unequivocal in any way number two I would have to go through with you and be confident that you understood the maximum penalties associated with the crimes I have every reason to believe that you understand the maximum penalties but I have every reason to believe that if you and I had a discussion about what those maximum penalties were you would Express confusion and you would not express a knowing confident and voluntary understanding of those things and so I'm not yet even going to get to that second step I also of course would have to under people versus Anderson The Binding Michigan Supreme Court case regarding way of constitutional right to represent yourself I would have to make specific other findings and those findings specifically are that I would have to determine after a conversation with you that you acting as your own attorney would not disrupt or unduly convenience or burden the court in the administration of the Court's business what is plain obvious and unarguable in over the last two or three hearings is that if you were permitted to represent yourself you would make the Court's administration of justice difficult you would delay matters you would be disruptive and your representation therefore of yourself would be unduly inconvenient to the court and the Court's operation of its business for that reason even if I found that you otherwise made an unequivocal request which you haven't even if I found that you clearly un understood and you expressed your waiver knowingly intelligent and voluntarily the court would still not Grant your request through your attorney to represent yourself under specific circumstances here it's my from finding based upon the background that I'm aware of that to allow you to do so would only encourage you to file what are very spurious and frivolous motions it would waste the Court's time it would waste the prosecutor's time and although it would waste Mr seager's time to have him remain on the court also notes that even if there is good cause for Mr Seager to withdraw the Michigan rules of professional conduct allow the court to continue an attorney's appearance and order that an attorney continue on a Case even when there's good cause to withdraw and so I choose to ex exercise the discretion provided to me under those Michigan rules of professional conduct and the Michigan court rules and Michigan case law and denying any requests to have you represent yourself you are and will remain represented by Mr Seager until further order of the Court Mr Seager did you need then some time to discuss the effect of that ruling with Mr Hart before I decide how this case needs to resolve trial he your honor I have something to say m m you don't get you don't get to decide Mr this will not be an argument this case will not proceed by me talking over you or you talking over me Court proceedings by law and by procedure Mr Hart are to be ordered and there're to be in a specific order and that order is dictated by the trial court judge that's me it's not dictated by an individual who's charged with criminal offenses you and so I'm exercise my discretion to control control those proceedings you right now Mr hardt are free on bond I don't particularly have any care as to whether or not you're free on bond or whether or not you sit next door except to this point for today I'm going to expect that you disagree with my decision on your motion to have you represent yourself I'm going to therefore excuse any further appearance of you for purposes of today's hearing and today's hearing only I'm going to set this matter for a new hearing after I hear from your attorney and from the prosecutor that new hearing is going to be set in person the reason I choose in my discretion to set it in person is because if you're disruptive or unduly burdens them to the court at the next Hearing in person I'm going to view it as a violation of your bond conditions and if I view it as a violation of your bond conditions you're going to be subject to the contempt powers of the Court which includes me revoking your bond and you sitting next door because if I have your bond revoked and you're sitting next door I'll know that Mr Seager can locate you and communicate with you and if you have your bond revoked I'll know that I'll be able to better control the situation than I can over an electronic communication like we're doing now because as if you demonstrated the only way I can control the proceedings right now is to mute you so that you can't speak over me that's not an effective way of running a courtroom but it's the only way that I'm given given your attitude experiences and your frustration Mr Seager did you wish to make a responsive record no y I do understand the course ruling and I clearly will abide by it be that as a mayor and I will discuss this with Mr her there was UN red offer that was extended which can you please speak up so that Mr har clearly sure there there was an amended offer that was extended which is much more favorable in the previous offer I will discuss it with him he can determine how he wishes to proceed all right did you want to for purpose of the record state that offer on the record your my understanding is that he could plead to one count of attempted resisting and instructing which would be a misdemeanor in L of dismissal of the attendant charge together with the habitual notice what was the habitual Fender notice that charged I don't have an in Fr because I just have the motion he's subject to a habitual four I believe it's on the information and I just didn't have the file in front of me but do you STI or do you disagree with that Mr Seager no all right so Mr Hart it's very important that you not only hear the offer that's been made as an offer to an attempted resistant of strout charge for dismissal of the existing charge as well as a habitual forth but it's fundamentally even more important that you talk to Mr Seager about that he can give you advice you ultimately get decide how to proceed and it does not matter to me how you proceed so long as you proceed with the understanding that court and court procedures require structure and that structure will be followed by you and by anyone else that's in this courtroom or there will be alternative options considered by the court Mr Ziggler anything further on any of that that the people would like to offer no no sir all right the court will set this matter for a status conference next month I will require that everyone in this matter be in person for the reasons I've already used explain Mr har you're free to sign off now I expect you'll talk with your attorney and be here in person next month you'll get a notice in the mail do you think this show is educational yes it'll drive people to read books and thanks for hanging out with us on facts or frauds make sure you hit that Thumbs Up Button you're subscribed and ring that Bell also leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think and a major thank you to every one of our faor frauds channel members if you'd like to become a member just hit that join button right next to subscribe or click on the link in the description and if you're still hanging out thank you I appreciate you all make sure you hit the Thumbs Up Button subscribe and ring that Bell also leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think if you'd like to become a member you can do that too till next time I'll see you soon [Music]