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 / Response in Opposition to the State's First Motion in Limine
It Happened To Us
Idaho Legal Documents - Malicious Prosecution of Jeannie Smith

Response in Opposition to the State's First Motion in Limine
Filed December 9, 2020

Response in Opposition to the State's First Motion in Limine

Comes now, Defendant Jeannie K. Smith, to move this Court to deny E. Clayne Tyler’s First Motion in Limine filed in the Name of the State of Idaho as the current Clearwater County Prosecutor and to explain some of the reasons why I object and oppose this motion.
1) The assertion that “all matters involving the right to possess or occupy that property were fully and finally litigated” is inaccurate, misleading, and factually untrue. Clearwater County Case CV18-18-0408 was currently in appeal on November 12, 2019, regarding new claims of fraud and the right to occupy the property. Issues of ownership and possession were still undecided on November 12, 2019. See attached documents from Idaho court records.
2) The “State’s” anticipation that I may attempt to “re-litigate” these matters is also inaccurate and factually impossible. I cannot relitigate anything. I was not a party to any civil case regarding the ownership or possession of this property. Anything I discuss regarding fraud, foreclosure, etc. is not a re-litigation, because I never litigated it. However, for the record, I have no desire to litigate regarding the fraudulent foreclosure. I am not well versed enough in the law to navigate this complex subject. I only intend to exercise my rights and introduce any evidence and testimony needed to show that according to my clear understanding, and as far as I could, or had reason to know, I had every right to be on the property on November 12, 2019, that no one present on that day presented any evidence to the contrary to me, and that I did not commit any crime knowingly or unknowingly on November 12, 2019.
a) I had the express and implied permission of Nick and Donna Nickerson;
b) I had the express and implied permission of PHH by and through their alleged agent Chris
Goetz who stated PHH had stopped the eviction and he would tell us when and if they started it
c) Chris Goetz never came to the property and communicated to me the situation had changed;
d) Unmarked, armed men and women came onto the property and broke into my house and never

            showed or served me any warrant or writ;

e) I was not noticed I needed to leave, allowed opportunity to leave on my own or remove my
personal belongings, or informed of my legal rights prior to being invaded, arrested, and taken to jail;
f) These men and women did not obey the sheriff’s civil manual, plaintiff’s written instructions, or any court order by forcibly invading the property without notice, falsely arresting and inhumanely detaining me, failing to protect and preserve my lawful rights on and since my arrest,
refusing to allow me or the Nickersons to remove our and others’ belongings in our care from the property, and other such acts and violations.

3) The “State” misconstrued my motions filed on August 26th and September 16th to fabricate an alleged basis for this motion. Throughout this case I have only brought up issues directly relevant to my defense. I raised issues relating to the foreclosure as a whole in support of my motion to disqualify the prosecutor’s office in an attempt to expose his prejudice toward me in this entire situation. I did not raise issues regarding the legality of the civil foreclosure proceedings in my defense of these false charges. Therefore, the State’s motion is without merit or foundation.
4) The “State” seeks a prejudicial order excluding only the evidence on the subject of the foreclosure and the Nickerson’s civil cases which could be favorable to my defense while intending to use evidence from the same cases which could be deemed favorable to the State. Court decisions are not infallible or inerrant. If courts, even state Supreme Courts, were always right, there would not be an appeal process or a United States Supreme Court. If the “State” is permitted to express their opinion that the court is right, I should and must be allowed to express my opinion that the court is wrong. Clearly it is unfair and unjust for the prosecutor to use select portions from adversarial documentation or judgments in the Nickerson’s case to prosecute me and prejudicially manipulate a jury’s verdict, and then request this Court prohibit me from using evidence and documentation from the same case, especially when it pertains to specific events and defenses involving my false arrest, imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the charges brought against me.

Further, the “State” must show more than mere damage to its case in concealing material facts involving the charges brought against me from the jury. In order to exclude evidence, there must be an unfair prejudice that outweighs the potential value of the evidence.

5) The “State” fails to demonstrate how the jury would be misled by raising issues regarding whether the foreclosure and ejectment were proper or valid. The “State” simply states it as if it were so. I believe the legal word for this may be conclusory.

Misleading is causing someone to believe something that is not true. I cannot mislead the jury regarding the truth.

To cause (another person) to believe something that is not so, whether by words of silence, action

            or inaction; to deceive. Black’s Law Dictionary. 10th Edition.


While it is Clayne Tyler’s stated opinion that the foreclosure and ejectment were proper, this does not make it true. A court issuing a verdict, judgment, or order does not make it true either. If it were a fact, there would be no appeal process, no concepts such as “fraud on the court,” “judicial corruption,” “official misconduct,” “misprison of felony,” or “concealment of exculpatory evidence,” and no cases where a “criminal” is finally acquitted after years in prison – or even after being executed.


“Conformable to fact; being in accordance with the actual state of things;”
Webster’s Dictionary,1828

Quite frankly, neither Clayne Tyler, Judge Michael Griffin, Judge Gregory FitzMaurice, the Idaho Supreme Court justices, the attorneys for PHH and Chase, or even their hired witnesses were present or an actual witness to the interactions, transactions, and communications between the Nickersons and the banks. Although I have no desire to litigate the case, I was there during many of these events. I know what is true, not from forming an opinion based on reading a court document or reviewing fabricated and inadmissible evidence, but because I was there. If anyone is seeking to, or in danger of “misleading” the jury, it is Clayne Tyler, not me.

I also believe this attempt to deceive this Court and the jury into believing the Nickersons and I had been told for years to leave the property, when this is not so, are to help overcome a very weak case and conceal the irrefutable fact Clearwater County acted without warrant, notice, adherence to directions, or lawful authority on November 12, 2019.

6) The “State” fails to communicate why it would be insufficient to object to this evidence at trial should I seek to introduce it. According to my limited research, this is an essential element of a Motion in Limine. Failure to clearly communicate reasons for this motion causes this motion to fail. Further, asking permission to conceal evidence from the jury that can establish reasonable doubt regarding whether or not I am guilty of the charges presented demonstrates malice and ill intent in the prosecution of this matter.

7) The “State” fails to identify any specific evidence or “speculative arguments” they want excluded.  Requesting this court make a ruling without specificity is unfairly vague and violates my equal access to justice and a proper defense in this matter.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, compliance with procedural requirements, and the other reasons stated above, I request this court deny the State’s First Motion in Limine in its entirety.

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