It Happened To Us. It Could Happen To You. The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family.
It Happened To Us
      It Could Happen To You
It Happened To Us - The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family
It Happened To Us. It Could Happen To You. The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family.
Home / Legal / Idaho Documents - Malicious Prosecution of Jeannie Smith / Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
It Happened To Us
Idaho Legal Documents - Malicious Prosecution of Jeannie Smith

Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Filed December 15, 2020

Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

I, Jeannie Smith, reply to the “State’s” objection to my Motion to Dismiss as follows.
Although I am not, and have no desire to be a lawyer, I do not believe I have quoted any rules which do not apply to my case. I.M.C.R. 1 specifically states, “Provided, the general Idaho Criminal Rules shall apply to the processing of misdemeanor complaints and citations to the extent they are not in conflict with these specific rules regarding the processing of misdemeanor charges.” I have not found any conflict with the Idaho Misdemeanor Criminal Rules and the Idaho Criminal Rules I have quoted. Additionally, Clayne Tyler stated I.C.R. 10 applies only to felony indictments from grand juries. I.C.R. 10 never mentions the word “felony” or “grand jury” and none of the rules I referenced were in the section titled “Title III – The Grand Jury, The Indictment and the Information.” If a “secret” interpretation book to these rules exists, I ask this court to please provide me a copy and grant me additional opportunity to review such interpretations.

I have never stood before the Idaho Supreme Court as a litigant, and therefore cannot have any “continuation of the same behavior.” It would seem Clayne Tyler seeks to attack and defame the Nickerson Family through me. I object and submit this violates fair play and creates undue prejudice.

Furthermore, although I will deal with this issue more thoroughly in my reply to the “State’s” objection to my Motion to Disqualify the Clearwater County Prosecutor’s Office, it is alarming a prosecutor, while acting in his elected official capacity as a law-enforcement professional, would attack or belittle a defendant or tortuously impede their efforts in defending themselves against unlawful violations, slander, defamation of character, malicious prosecution, official misconduct, unlawful seizure, or other such violations and threats to their personal liberty. Honestly, defending oneself against false charges should not and cannot accurately be labeled as frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation or merit. Such statements pose a blight to judicial integrity and should be deemed a violation of the Professional Code of Conduct.

Per Rule 3:1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT, a defense is not frivolous merely because facts were not first fully substantiated, especially if due to fraud on the court, attorney negligence, misprison of felony, and the fraudulent concealment of vital evidence.

Per Rule 3:8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR, the prosecutor shall (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; and (h) when a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction. The “State” is fully aware of the defects in the actions that occurred on November 12, 2019, and the charges brought against me. 

Good faith arguments cannot be denied foundation or merit if the “State” is going to ensure and protect equal access to justice for all. Therefore, I request this Court recognize all attempts to right wrongs, refute false accusations, and defend freedoms are necessary and paramount to the stability and very existence of a free society.
I presented all possibly applicable codes and rules to this Court I could find in support of my Motion to Dismiss. It appears numerous additional issues also compel this Court to dismiss the charges against me even before it goes to a jury trial, but I have had restricted access to legal resources to research and gather supporting dogma with the ongoing COVID-19 crisis limitations put in place by Governor Brad Little, the temporary closure of law libraries by the Idaho Supreme Court due to this crisis, the permanent closure of the Clearwater County Law Library, and my inability to secure counsel due to my ongoing camping status caused by Clearwater County forcibly confiscating my personal possessions without notice, warrant, complaint, or lawful authority. Because the “State” failed to give specific objections to my motion to dismiss, researching and preparing an effective response is seemingly impossible.

Therefore, in the interest of justice I move this court once again to dismiss the charges against me due to defects in the complaint, prosecution, prior proceedings in this case thus far, and for reasons presented previously and discussed below.

1) The charges against me must be dismissed because I was never read my Miranda rights.

Miranda Rule
Prior to any custodial interrogation; that is, questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way, the person must be warned:

1. That he has a right to remain silent;

2. That any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him;

3. That he has a right to the presence of an attorney;

4. That if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Unless and until these warnings or a waiver of these rights are demonstrated at the trial, no evidence obtained in the interrogation may be used against the accused. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 478, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 294. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (emphasis added)

According to Nolo, “It doesn’t matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.” The alleged conversation between Mitch Jared and myself related in his “Primary Report” and attached to the Affidavit For Initial Determination of Probable Cause After Arrest Without Warrant, took place after I had been taken into custody. On November 12, 2019, I was going about my daily tasks when armed men and women cut the locked gate, busted the window of the locked house I was inside, came into my bedroom, took me outside of my warm house, double handcuffed me, and sat me down on a cold, hard, brick retaining wall in the cold, rainy weather with only the clothes that I had been wearing in my warm house. At no time did I resist arrest, attempt to flee, or show any aggression toward any individual. At all times I was cooperative, polite, and peaceful. After I had been subjected to prolonged physical and psychological intimidation and discomfort from exposure to cold, uncomfortable, wet, conditions; being tightly handcuffed with my hands behind my back and the circulation restricted for a long period of time; having a guard stationed beside me as if I was a dangerous criminal; being unable to use the restroom; weak from missing a meal; wondering if I was going to catch pneumonia from being wet, cold, and outside in the elements for so long; distressed from watching men and women damage and destroy the family ranch I have spent years maintaining, improving, and protecting; and feeling severely traumatized because alleged law enforcement officers in the United States of America had done all this to law abiding citizens in direct violation of Sheriff Chris Goetz’s word of honor, and without serving me or the property any warrant or writ, I was questioned, without being read my Miranda Rights. It is this questioning and evidence which the state seeks to prosecute me based on. This is the evidence given to this Court to determine probable cause for my warrantless arrest and to begin proceedings against me. Per the Miranda Rule, this evidence is inadmissible and cannot be legally used as it was obtained after I had been in custody for a long time, while I was under severe duress, and without advising me of my Miranda Rights.

Further, Mitch Jared swore and signed the complaint when he has no personal knowledge regarding the alleged Count II RESIST AND OBSTRUCT MISD. I.C. § 18-705 charge. Mitch Jared was not present at the time of my arrest. Mitch Jared was not present when the jailer asked for my social security number. Mitch Jared swore I refused to comply with the orders of police officers without stating how. Clayne Tyler has since attempted to supplement this testimony and define this alleged non-compliance as not coming to the door and opening the door. Mitch Jared was not present when I was removed from my house. He has no personal knowledge of what happened or did not happen. Though requested, no other officer report has been provided to me other than Officer Kent admitting he pepper sprayed the puppies on the property despite claims by Clearwater County officials this did not occur. Mitch Jared is (1) the officer who drove me to jail and placed my life at risk by talking on a cell phone during transport on Upper Ford’s Creek Road, (2) an investigator who reviewed evidence of fraud when the Nickerson Family asked Clearwater County law enforcement for protection from hate crimes and the ongoing targeted attack against their family for their Christian faith and disfavored worldviews that freedom and justice are for all, and (3) an officer who has been complicit in aligning himself with grave miscarriages of justice in this matter that time and the truth will prove should never have occurred.

The “State” then added a second charge of resisting and obstructing an officer because I exercised my right to remain silent during further questioning, even though I was never advised of my rights. Initially, the only specific behavior the “State” alleged in their complaint was obstructing an officer by not providing my name and social security number when I was booked at jail. However, after my motion pointed out it was a violation of federal law to use a social security number for identification purposes, the “State”, without submitting any further testimony or evidence, alleged I failed to open the door or come to the door as evidence of obstruction. No authority was ever served or shown to me. Furthermore, it is a blatant violation of my fourth amendment rights without such authority.

“As the United States Supreme Court stated in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1381-82, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, 653 (1980) (citation omitted):

The Fourth Amendment protects the individual's privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual's home — a zone that finds its roots in clear and specific constitutional terms: `The right of the people to be secure in their ... houses ... shall not be violated.' That language unequivocally establishes the proposition that `[a]t the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.' In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.”
State v. Maland, 103 P.3d 430, 140 Idaho 817 (2004).

Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Prohibited

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue without probable cause shown by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. Constitution of the State of Idaho, Article I, Section 17

Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Furthermore, the definition of resisting and obstructing requires physical resistance.

Obstructing an Officer

Implies forcible resistance; State v. Le Blanc, 115 Me. 142, 98 A. 119, 120; contra, State v. Estes, 185 N.C. 752, 117 S.E. 581, 582.

To "obstruct" a public officer means to oppose that officer. It does not mean to oppose or impede the process with which the officer is armed, or to defeat its execution, but that the officer himself shall be obstructed. Knoff v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 36, 192 P. 596, 597; Ratcliff v. State, 12 Okl.Cr. 448, 158 P. 293, 294. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition

I did not physically obstruct any officer, nor has the state alleged that I did so. The evidence used to determine probable cause is inadmissible and no other evidence exists. Therefore, these charges are without foundation or merit and must be dismissed for good cause.

2) The charges against me must be dismissed because I was not taken before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest in violation of I.C.R. 5(b). My access to courts and counsel as stipulated on page 9 of the Idaho Jails Orientation Handbook, When a person is incarcerated on a new charge, he/she will be scheduled to appear for an arraignment within 24 hours of the arrest, excluding weekends and holidays, was also violated. No differentiation between felonies or misdemeanors is mentioned in this section, and one being incarcerated for a lesser offense (misdemeanor) should have quicker access to a judge and release from custody than one committing a greater offense (felony). As demonstrated in my Affidavit of Jeannie Smith in Support of Motions and the attached Exhibits, particularly Exhibit C, I was not brought before this Court until November 25, 2019. After it was pointed out the court minutes were backdated to correct this defect to numerous local individuals, the minutes were changed in the record to properly reflect the true date I was before this Court.

3) The charges against me must be dismissed because the State used excessive force in my arrest in violation of I.C. § 19-602. Although I made no attempt to resist or flee, I was double handcuffed tightly with my hands behind my back. I was also subjected to freezing cold, wet, hard conditions when thousands of covered, heated, comfortable square footage were available.

4) The charges against me must be dismissed because the State did not inform me of their intention to arrest me, the cause of arrest, or the authority to arrest me prior to arresting me in violation of I.C. § 19-608. Unmarked, armed men and women invaded the ranch and broke into “my” house and immediately took me into custody without stating why I was being arrested or providing any authority for doing so.
5) The charges against me must be dismissed because the State arrested me before I allegedly committed a public offence in violation of I.C. § 19-603. According to the Uniform Citation I was given I did not allegedly commit any crime until 2:27 p.m. However, I was handcuffed and taken into custody hours before this. Arresting me before I ever committed an alleged crime is a violation of Idaho Code, my constitutional rights, and the American justice system.

6) The charge of obstructing an officer must be dismissed because I was not arraigned on this charge within 30 days of the criminal complaint containing the charge being filed in violation I.C.R. 10(a). The criminal complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and my arraignment on this complaint took place on March 10, 2020.
7) The charge of obstructing an officer must be dismissed because I was not notified of my arraignment on this charge in violation of I.C.R. 10(d). During my March 10, 2020, pretrial conference I was suddenly, and without prior warning, notified I would be arraigned on this charge. Per I.C.R. 10(d) Clayne Tyler was to inform me at least 3 days prior to the arraignment of the time and place of the arraignment. I was not informed. I was completely unprepared to argue regarding the “State” amending their complaint or to plead on this charge.
8) The charge of obstructing an officer must be dismissed because I was not required to plead on this charge in violation of I.C.R. 10(c). Although this Court arraigned me on this charge, I was never asked to plead. Furthermore, I was not given a copy of the complaint during the arraignment or informed I was allowed additional time to enter a plea per I.C.R. 10(c).
9) The charge of obstructing an officer must be dismissed because I was not allowed a reasonable period of time to obtain counsel for this additional different and greater charge in violation of I.C.R. 10(b). Although I communicated when this sudden arraignment began I wished to invoke my 6th amendment right to obtain counsel, the arraignment still proceeded.
10) The charge of obstructing an officer must be dismissed because my substantial rights were prejudiced by the “State” adding this charge in violation of I.M.C.R. 3(d). No probable cause affidavit was filed in support of this charge. This charge is a new, greater, and different offence which was not raised in the initial charge and has no evidence supporting it. My constitutional right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” has been violated with this charge. The definition of obstructing an officer specifies a physical obstruction. There is no evidence or witness testimony stating how I physically obstructed any officer or demonstrating any orders which I allegedly refused to comply with. My locked home was broken into, and I peacefully responded to arrest, double handcuffing, being placed in inhumane conditions, searching of my person, transportation, and imprisonment.

11) The charges against me must be dismissed because according to I.C. § 18-7008(6)(a)(i) I am not guilty of trespass.

I.C. § 18-7008(6)(a)(i)
(6) A person shall not be guilty of trespass under this section for entering or remaining upon real property if the person entered or remained on the property pursuant to any of the following rights or authorities:

(a) An established right of entry or occupancy of the real property in question, including, but not limited to:

(i) An invitation, whether express or implied, to enter or remain on real property


I had an express and implied right to be on the property by Nick and Donna Nickerson, and PHH, by and through their alleged agent, Sheriff Chris Goetz. Chris Goetz communicated PHH had stopped all ejectment actions and gave us his word he would tell us if and when anything changed. No one on November 12, 2019, ever showed me any document or authority which contradicted my clear understanding. See Affidavit of Jeannie Smith in Support of Motions. Furthermore, according to I.C. § 18-7008(2)(a), failing to depart immediately after being notified by the owner or his agent does not constitute criminal trespass under a landlord-tenant relationship. Although I do not have a landlord-tenant relationship with Nick and Donna Nickerson or PHH, the circumstances bear a much closer resemblance to such a relationship because of my long-standing, established express and implied permission and right of use, and long term and continued use of the property, than to a situation where I happened to walk onto another person’s property and then refused to leave after being asked to by the owner. Again, I would like to reiterate that I was never shown or served any writ, warrant, or other authority for the officer’s actions. Also, the Nickerson Family were in possession of the property and had given me their permission to occupy the property.

12) The charges against me must be dismissed because the officers did not obey the commands in the unserved, unnoticed, and disputed Second Writ of Ejectment or the bank’s written instructions. The bank’s written instructions and writ of ejectment is what allegedly gave the officers any authority to enter the property. The clear directives in these documents were not followed. In fact, the second writ of ejectment was stamped “Serve and Leave.” If this directive had been followed, I would not be facing these charges today. Additionally, both the writ and the written instructions communicate the defendant(s), including all ‘occupants’, are to be given opportunity to remove their belongings prior to law enforcement removing them. I was never served this writ or given opportunity to remove myself or my possessions prior to being arrested. The officers did not follow the written instructions of the court and the bank thereby nullifying their authority as an alleged agent.


Standard 3-4.4 Discretion in Filing, Declining, Maintaining, and Dismissing Criminal Charges
(a) In order to fully implement the prosecutor’s functions and duties, including the obligation to enforce the law while exercising sound discretion, the prosecutor is not obliged to file or maintain all criminal charges which the evidence might support. Among the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising discretion to initiate, decline, or dismiss a criminal charge, even though it meets the requirements of Standard 3-4.3 are:
(i) the strength of the case;
(ii) the prosecutor’s doubt that the accused is in fact guilty;
(iii) the extent or absence of harm caused by the offense;
(iv) the impact of prosecution or non-prosecution on the public welfare;
(v) the background and characteristics of the offender, including any voluntary restitution or efforts at rehabilitation;
(vi) whether the authorized or likely punishment or collateral consequences are disproportionate in relation to the particular offense or the offender;
(vii) the views and motives of the victim or complainant;
(viii) any improper conduct by law enforcement;
ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function


The “State” failed to follow procedure and violated numerous laws and rules in my arrest, incarceration, and prosecution. The “State” violated the clear written instructions of the court and bank thereby nullifying their authority as an alleged agent. The “State” seeks to prosecute me based on inadmissible evidence illegally obtained by questioning me while in handcuffs and in custody without first advising me of my Miranda Rights. Defects in the complaint, prosecution, and prior proceedings in this case are good faith arguments that demonstrate good cause for dismissal of my case. Therefore, justice, judicial efficiency, and good stewardship of county funds and resources move this Court to dismiss the charges against me. Further, truth compels this Court to investigate the horrendous reasons why I was falsely charged and maliciously prosecuted on November 12, 2019, in the first place.
This reply brief is supported by the Affidavit of Jeannie Smith in Support of Motions and its attached documents - Notice to Appear, Arraignment Minutes, Hearing Search Results, and

A Letter From Nick Nickerson As A Friend Of Law and Justice.

View this document page by page
View this document as a PDF
View other legal documents