It Happened To Us. It Could Happen To You. The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family. www.ithappenedtous.com
Home / Legal / Idaho Documents - Malicious Prosecution of Jeannie Smith / Motion to Vacate Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Setting
It Happened To Us
Idaho Legal Documents - Malicious Prosecution of Jeannie Smith

Motion to Vacate Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Setting
Filed December 15, 2020

Motion to Vacate Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Setting


COMES NOW Jeannie K. Smith, moves this Court to vacate the final pretrial conference and trial setting so good faith arguments that dismiss all charges brought against me may be fully and fairly heard and determined and any additional actions still needing to be presented and addressed may have opportunity to be presented.

A Motion To Disqualify the Clearwater County Prosecutors Office is before this Court for conflict of interest, adversarial bias and prejudice, withholding exculpatory evidence, and other actions repugnant to justice and fair play. These actions nullify the Clearwater County Prosecutor Office’s power and authority to prosecute this case and require supervisory intervention to ensure the protection, safety, security, and preservation of my Constitutional and legal rights and liberties. Should my arguments not compel this Court to enter an order to disqualify, nonparties are prepared to intervene on my behalf in reconsideration.

 

When appropriate, nonparties are permitted to intervene for the purpose of seeking disqualification. See, e.g., Oxford Systems, Inc. v. CellPro, Inc., 45F. Supp.2d 1055 (S.D.

Wash. 1999). Applied Legal Ethics: Disqualifying Counsel In Idaho State and Federal Courts

No harm can come to the public or justice by the vacation of this pretrial proceeding, the dismissal of my charges with prejudice, or the disqualification of the Clearwater County Prosecutor’s Office. No owner, alleged owner, person in possession, or person occupying the property filed a complaint asking that I be arrested or criminally charged for being on the property. No warrant was issued prior to my arrest. Admissible and factual probable cause based on personal knowledge has not been established. I have no criminal record. All charges brought against me represent non-violent crimes with no injury to property or persons. I did no harm.

COVID-19 has stopped, delayed, and modified all Idaho court proceedings in 2020. The Idaho Supreme Court has closed law libraries, limited/cancelled in person hearings, and cancelled jury trials on more than one occasion. My arrest on November 12, 2019, began the timeline controlling these proceedings. I did not appear before a Magistrate within 24 hours, nor did I have opportunity to challenge the lawfulness or conspiratorial motives behind my arrest prior to being released on $300 bail. My first appearance before this Court to answer the sole charge of Trespass was on November 25, 2019, 13 days after my arrest. The “State” filed a sworn complaint on December 30, 2019, 48 days after my arrest. This complaint expanded the charges to include I.C. §18-705. Resisting and Obstructing Officers. No additional evidence or testimony was presented.

Though no admissible or lawful evidence of probable cause has been presented to this Court to demonstrate I could have or intended to commit a crime on November 12, 2019, my personal liberties have been severely restricted for the past 400 days. To be clear, I was arrested for being on a property I was lawfully occupying and my personal belongings were seized when no owner, authority, or law requested or granted permission for them to be taken or for me to be arrested.

At all times, I have politely and respectfully approached this Court while enduring unwarranted and unjustified restrictions and hardships created without lawful right or authority.

I request this Court vacate the final pretrial conference and trial setting until issues dismissing these proceedings may be addressed and my request to not stand before a man and office that enabled and allowed grave miscarriages of justice to occur against me is honored. This seems like the least this Court and Clearwater County can do.

For these reasons, and those listed below, I move the Court to vacate the pretrial conference and trial setting.

1) Since finding a resolution to the case prior to going to trial is a significant purpose of a final pretrial conference, issues such as disqualifying the prosecutor and dismissing the case in its entirety, should most certainly be decided prior to proceeding with a final pretrial conference. Therefore, a final pretrial conference cannot effectively occur until my Motion to Dismiss is heard and a ruling is rendered. Should this Court grant my motion to dismiss based on good causes shown, this scheduled final pretrial conference would become a needless waste of time, pointless expenditure of resources, and unnecessarily add to my ongoing victimization.

2) A final pretrial conference should be held with the prosecutor who will proceed to trial as the new prosecutor should have opportunity to review the case and determine if there is any legitimate or legal foundation or basis to maintain these charges against me. He should also have the opportunity to proffer a resolution prior to moving forward with trial. Should my Motion To Disqualify be granted, the final pretrial conference and trial setting should be rescheduled after the new prosecutor reviews my case and determines whether and how to best proceed.

3) Holding a final pretrial conference when I have moved the Court to disqualify the Clearwater County Prosecutor’s Office denies due process as my good faith arguments have demonstrated any attempts to communicate or discuss any potential resolution with Clayne Tyler and his office are not in my best interest or in the interest of seeking truth and justice in this matter. As detailed in my Motion To Disqualify Clearwater County Prosecutors Office, their demonstrated bias, prejudice, and need to protect their interests and shield themselves from liability, creates impossibility in seeking or finding a resolution regarding these charges.

4) This Court has acknowledged I will have opportunity to argue both my motions on December 16, 2020. However, neither is listed on the hearing schedules I received. As of yesterday, December 14th, my understanding is the District Court has communicated only a pretrial conference and Motion in Limine are scheduled. This is concerning and very alarming to me as I feel it is imperative these motions be fully briefed and decided prior to any closures a final pretrial conference might create. Thus, it is impossible for me to agree to proceed to trial tomorrow.

5) Should either of these motions not be granted, additional motions will be required prior to my being ready to move forward to trial. This includes, but is not limited to, a Motion To Suppress Evidence, Motion To Strike, and Motion To Compel Exculpatory Evidence.

6) Although ample time has been provided for the “State” to produce all evidence in accordance with applicable rules, the “State” has withheld, and failed to produce exculpatory evidence in violation of I.C.R. 16(a), Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8, and the Brady Rule. This failure of the “State” to produce all exculpatory evidence has denied me opportunity to file any necessary additional motions based on this evidence.

7) Although the “State” may seek to color this request to continue as a “stall tactic” in opposition to this motion, I move the Court to remember my motion for dismissal was verbally requested over a year ago on November 25, 2019. At that time, the Court instructed me it was not time for this motion yet. I formally filed this motion almost 3 months ago on September 16, 2020. Unfortunately, extenuating circumstances, such as those described above, have delayed all court proceedings and my motions are yet to be fully briefed and heard. My request to disqualify Clayne Tyler was first discussed on the campsite the night of my arrest and I have attempted to communicate my distrust and frustrations regarding his prosecution of the case and my inability to have a fair trial ever since. The only time I have requested a hearing for these motions to be continued is when the “State” prejudicially filed their responses outside the timeline specified in the Idaho Rules which denied my codified right and opportunity to reply to their objections.

8) It is my understanding that the proceedings in my case scheduled for December 16, 2020, are not being done in open court. This too is very alarming to me. My case does not involve trade secrets, personal issues, dangerous crimes, or any other matter requiring secrecy for the protection of any individual or the public at large. This sudden change in procedure is very inconsistent with Idaho’s Open Meeting laws, policies of transparent government, my constitutional right to a public trial, and our first amendment rights as Americans. If the Court intends to proceed with a censored audience hearing on December 16, 2020, I request these hearings be continued until argument can be presented and heard regarding the merits of open/closed hearings on these matters to protect private and public constitutional rights and ensure honesty and integrity in all judicial proceedings.

9) The same unavoidable, extenuating circumstances such as closed law libraries preventing my access to legal resources, COVID-19 concerns and restrictions preventing me from obtaining counsel, ongoing detainment of my personal belongings requiring me to maintain a campsite overlooking the property, and other such difficulties beyond my control, which have been present in my previous motions to vacate, continue until this day. I would remind the Court that if these issues were “good cause” for granting a continuance or vacation in the past, and these issues still unavoidably continue, good cause still exists today. Although under normal circumstances the Court would never face such rare, unique, inescapable and ongoing situations, these are the unprecedented times we find ourselves in. Never, in the history of our country, have we faced a health crisis which has so impacted our daily lives. I hope that in the history of this Court, a defendant has never before been unlawfully deprived of personal possessions for over a year despite repeated written and verbal requests, ignored demands for their return, and broken promises of restitution by the offending parties, including local, state, and national officials.  These situations are so exceptional that standard protocols, case law, and other resources which would normally guide such procedures, cannot and do not apply.

 

Recurrendum est ad extraordinarium quando non valet ordinarium. We must have recourse to what is extraordinary, when what is ordinary fails.
Ubi cessat remedium ordinarium, ibi decurritur ad extraordinarium. Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one. 4 Coke, 92b.
Bonus judex secundum aequum et bonum judicat et aequitatem stricto juri praefert. A good judge decides according to justice and right and prefers equity to strict law.

 

Therefore, I move this Court to vacate the final pretrial conference and trial setting.

 



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

Back to IHTU HOME PAGE