<p> 1 John Stuart, sui juris 10407 West Trumbull Road 2 Tolleson, Arizona Phone (480) 232-0606 3 Fax (623) 476-7392</p><p>4</p><p>5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA </p><p>6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA </p><p>7 STATE OF ARIZONA, ) NO. CR2008-106594-001 8 Plaintiff, ) ) MOTION TO PROCEED SUI JURIS/ 9 vs. ) PRO PER/PRO SE WITH ) JEFF SWIERSKI AS ADVISORY 10 JOHN C. STUART, ) COUNSEL 11 Defendant. ) (Assigned to the Hon. Glenn Davis)</p><p>12 The Defendant Under Protest, John Stuart, (“Defendant” and/or “Stuart”) 13 enters this Motion to Proceed pro se/ pro per/ sui juris; and maintain Jeff Swierski as 14 advisory counsel: on the condition that this Court will not further violate any of 15 Stuart’s substantive rights; and nor will this Court invoke Judge McMurdie’s unlawful 16 order that Stuart be unlawfully incarcerated for contempt of court if Stuart attempts to 17 proceed pro se/ pro per/ sui juris (“pro per”); and this Court orders ALL motions 18 written by Stuart be considered as valid motions; and this Court cease and desist 19 violating Stuart’s due process of law and other substantive rights; and this Court order 20 that all violations of Stuart’s due process of law and other substantive rights be 21 corrected before proceeding in this matter to trial. 22 If this Court again rules to violate Stuart’s due process of law and substantive 23 rights to prevent Stuart from proceeding pro per as a means to once again unlawfully 24 incarcerate Stuart; then Stuart withdraws this motion due to this Court’s unlawful 25 threats and coercive acts against Stuart. 26</p><p>1 of 21 1 Stuart files this motion under duress due to the criminal acts committed against 2 Stuart by this Court and the other State agents. 3 This pleading shall be entered into this Court’s record; and as evidence as 4 defense Exhibit 1; and shall be used in any appeal if necessary. 5 Stuart reserves and invokes all rights, objects to all allegations and statements 6 made by State agents, and demands this Court adhere to Arizona Rules of Criminal 7 Procedures, Arizona Revised Statutes, the State and Federal Constitutions, 8 International Human Rights Treaties, American Jurisprudence, even though this 9 Court has repeatedly refused to do so because such would mandate that this case and 10 all charges against Stuart be dismissed with prejudice and the State’s agents be 11 charged with deprivation of civil rights under color of law, false imprisonment, 12 conspiracy, treason, conspiracy to commit treason, terrorism, and other high crimes. 13 Stuart wrote this pleading after consulting with Swierski. Stuart has worked 14 with and for Swierski since Swierski was appointed as counsel. Swierski is not 15 attempting to place Stuart in harm’s way but has come to the conclusion that this 16 Court will not allow Stuart to receive a fair trial irrespective of what substantive rights 17 this Court must deprive Stuart of; and what Rules and Laws this Court must violate to 18 continue the false and malicious prosecution of Stuart. 19 This pleading is entered by Stuart and pursuant to Swierski’s fiduciary and 20 attorney client obligation to Stuart. All of Stuart’s allegations in this pleading are true 21 and are evidenced by this Court’s own record. The statements may be considered 22 harsh by this Court, but such consideration does not disprove the factual allegations, 23 such is only further evidence of the reason for the body politics’ distain and distrust of 24 this Court and the State’s agents who purposefully destroy innocent people’s lives for 25 their own financial gain through a corrupt system used by State agents to obtain blood 26</p><p>2 of 21 1 money through a pension fund based on convicting innocent people and enslaving 2 them in a privatized prison system that pays into the judge’s and prosecutor’s pension 3 funds. 4 Stuart reserves the right to present this and all other pleadings to any jury, 5 juror, citizen, press person, etc., irrespective of this Court’s decision; and to use 6 this document and everything contained herein for any appeal if this Court is 7 successful in its attempts to frame Stuart by committing felonious acts against 8 Stuart and/or this Court and/or the body politic. Said acts include but are not 9 limited to: i) destroying, refusing to recover, concealing, withholding and/or 10 altering exculpatory evidence; and ii) perjury to two (2) Grand Juries, judges, 11 court officials; and iii) threatening, coercing, intimidating witnesses; and iv) 12 filing and/or recording false and/or forged documents into a public record; and 13 v) unlawfully deposing a former defense team’s paralegal to obtain attorney 14 client privileged information. 15 / 16 STATEMENT OF FACTS 17 I. Stuart was kidnapped and the decedent died during Stuart’s escape 18 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. § 13-1304, the decedent kidnapped Stuart and 19 Stuart’s then fiancé. 20 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. § 13-418, any action Stuart may have taken to 21 escape the kidnapping is justified. 22 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. § 13-419, any action Stuart may have taken to 23 survive the decedent’s violent assault on Stuart during the kidnapping are presumed 24 reasonable. 25</p><p>26</p><p>3 of 21 1 The decedent died while escaping from a lawfully conducted citizen’s arrest 2 pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. §§ 13-3884 and 13-3889. 3 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. §§ 13-2809, 13-3920 and others, Detective 4 Dalton committed felonious acts when he refused to do as commanded by the warrant 5 and collect exculpatory evidence. 6 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. § 21-422, and others, Detective Dalton 7 committed felonious acts when he committed perjury to the two (2) Grand Juries. 8 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. § 39-161 and others, Detective Dalton committed 9 felonious acts when he entered false versions of witness statements into a public 10 office. 11 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. §§ 13-2809, 13-3920 and others, Prosecutor 12 Charbel committed felonious acts when she concealed the vehicle from the defense 13 for several months to allow the rain to wash off the exculpatory blood evidence from 14 the exterior of the vehicle. 15 Pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.S. §§ 39-161, 13-2702 and others, Prosecutor 16 Charbel committed felonious acts when she lied to Judge Baca to obtain a warrant on 17 false pretenses to have Stuart wrongfully incarcerated. 18 The previous statements are not intended as a complete list of crimes committed 19 by the State’s Agent’s against Stuart; and Stuart reserves the right to list additional 20 crimes committed by the State’s agents as Stuart deems necessary. The list is 21 however sufficient good cause and support to dismiss this case with prejudice and 22 order the indictments of Prosecutor Charbel and Detective Dalton. 23 II. State agents have committed crimes to evade Arizona law 24 in furtherance of the State’s malicious prosecution 25</p><p>26</p><p>4 of 21 1 The numerous criminal acts committed by the State’s agents have been to evade 2 the legislative intent of “castle doctrine” and other laws. These crimes include, but are 3 not limited to, perjury, destruction of exculpatory evidence, altering exculpatory 4 evidence, concealing exculpatory evidence, filing false documents, threatening and/or 5 coercing witnesses, issuing unlawful arrest warrant(s) under color of law, wrongful 6 imprisonment, deposing a former defense team’s paralegal to unlawfully obtain 7 attorney client privileged information; and other high crimes and treason against the 8 federal and state constitutions. 9 III. This Court has evidence and knowledge of State’s agent’s criminal acts 10 This Court is well aware of the unwritten rule followed by all police officers 11 that requires them to acquire and maintain all the evidence they can when they are 12 sure a defendant is guilty; and conversely requires corrupt police officers to destroy 13 as much of the exculpatory evidence as possible when they believe the defendant 14 is innocent. This unwritten rule, unknown to laymen yet known to all court and police 15 officers, is good cause and support to cause anyone familiar with the court to be 16 absolutely sure that this Court, the prosecutor, and the police officers involved are all 17 positive that Stuart is innocent. 18 On April 5, 2011, Prosecutor Susie Charbel (“Charbel”) entered her Motion to 19 Strike (docket # 843208) to remove several of the pleadings written by Defendant 20 Under Protest John Stuart (“Stuart”) and entered by public defender Jeff Swierski 21 (“Swierski”). 22 As has become standard practice for Charbel in this case, the Motion was 23 entered past the time limit and MUST be excluded pursuant to, inter alia, A.R.Crim. 24 P. Rule 16.1. To date, Charbel has now entered eight (8) motions that by law must be 25 denied for their violation of Rule 16.1, yet this court might once again, as always so 26</p><p>5 of 21 1 far in this case, violate Stuart’s due process of law rights and rule in favor of 2 Charbel’s motion. In fact, this Court has ALWAYS ruled in favor of the State 3 irrespective of the Rules of Court and Felonious acts the State agents have committed 4 in furtherance of framing Stuart. 5 IV. This Court is biased and corrupt and has prejudiced Stuart 6 As an attorney; Swierski has a duty to defend Stuart but this duty cannot be 7 fulfilled in this Court due to the fact this Court has to date violated well over one 8 hundred (100) Rules and Laws to continue the malicious and baseless prosecution of 9 the man this Court has adequate knowledge is innocent and/or justified under Arizona 10 law. 11 The State has made it a “functional impossibility” to put on an adequate and 12 effective defense by any attorney for Stuart. The State agent’s numerous acts of 13 perjury and destruction of ALL of the exculpatory evidence over the last three (3) 14 years notwithstanding; recently Stuart has discovered: 15 a. The State has been lying to Stuart concerning Stuart’s vehicle which was 16 impounded. The State lied to this Court and Stuart by falsely claiming for nine (9) 17 months that the State gave the vehicle away, when in fact the State had the vehicle in 18 its possession the whole time. The State perpetrated this fraud with malice 19 aforethought to destroy exculpatory evidence on the exterior of the vehicle. A Phoenix 20 Police Officer working at the impound yard confessed to counsel that someone had 21 removed the tarp Stuart’s counsel placed on the vehicle to protect the blood evidence, 22 which caused the exculpatory evidence to be washed away by numerous rains. 23 b. Decedent Beasley’s tooth was chipped. Although there is no way to 24 prove how the tooth was chipped the State has presented no evidence, because none 25 exists, that the tooth was not chipped during the decedent’s kidnapping and attempted 26</p><p>6 of 21 1 murder of Stuart. The State has knowingly falsely claimed there is no evidence Stuart 2 was physically attacked by the decedent, yet for over three (3) years the State has 3 known the decedent’s tooth was chipped and that the chip most likely occurred during 4 decedent’s attempted murder of Stuart. 5 c. The holster, which took months for Stuart to receive from the State, had 6 blood on it when Stuart’s expert examined it. Stuart attempted to have the holster 7 taken directly to the lab for fear the State’s agent would once again purposefully 8 destroy the exculpatory evidence by cleaning the blood off of the holster. The State 9 did in fact get the holster before the holster went to the lab, and to no one’s surprise, 10 the blood that was on the holster somehow disappeared before the holster was given to 11 the lab. 12 d. The State is now using a former defense team’s paralegal that has stalked 13 Stuart for over a year as a witness against Stuart. The State has used information 14 unlawfully obtained by the defense team’s former paralegal to assist the State in 15 writing and filing motions directly related to Stuart’s attorney client privileged 16 confidential information and strategy. Now that the prosecution is aware of Stuart’s 17 confidential and private defense strategy it is a functional impossibility for Swierski 18 and/or Stuart to provide an adequate defense. As is evident by all of the previous 19 rulings of this Court, all that is required for the prosecution to derail any defense 20 and/or justification by Stuart is for the prosecution to again lie to this Court and this 21 Court will rule, as it always has, in favor of the prosecution’s lies and false claims. 22 Anyone of the previous four (4) crimes would be good cause and support under 23 Arizona law to dismiss this case with prejudice. The fact all four (4) occurred and this 24 Court has evidence all four (4) occurred at the behest of State’s agents is grounds to 25 dismiss this case with prejudice and charge the State’s agents involved with the 26</p><p>7 of 21 1 felonies this Court has evidence the State agents committed. Yet this Court has made 2 Stuart and every one of Stuart’s attorneys aware this Court will allow the State’s 3 agents to commit any crime provided said crime leads to the false conviction of 4 Stuart. 5 Accordingly, any attorney representing Stuart would fail in his required duty to 6 provide effective counsel for Stuart. How does an attorney provide effective counsel 7 when the court itself is in on the framing of a known innocent defendant? Such a 8 defense is by definition ‘ineffectiveness of counsel’ as no attorney can even claim this 9 Court is as corrupt as this Court’s own record proves this Court is. 10 Ergo, Stuart must represent himself, and in doing so Stuart reserves the right to 11 inform the public of all information derived from discovery and/or otherwise. This 12 would include, without limitations, the financial benefit any and all State agents 13 receive from imprisoning innocent people through pension funds or otherwise, Brady 14 list material, facts, evidence, witness statements, and/or any and all other material. 15 This Court has repeatedly proven through its rulings and actions that it will go 16 to any lengths to garner a false conviction of Stuart as a means to increase the pension 17 funds and financials of all of the State’s agents involved in falsely prosecuting Stuart. 18 The State’s agents involved in this case are far too corrupt and have destroyed 19 so much evidence it is now a functional impossibility for Stuart to prove his innocent. 20 Judge McMurdie unlawfully threatened Stuart with false imprisonment if Stuart 21 attempted to proceed without counsel and therefore Stuart has been forced against his 22 will and in lieu of being falsely imprisoned for an indeterminate amount of time to 23 accept counsel, therefore, Stuart cannot and has not moved this Court to allow him to 24 proceed as pro per. 25</p><p>26</p><p>8 of 21 1 Swierski has still been unable to discover any rule, law or jurisprudence that 2 allows any judge the discretion and/or authority to prevent a defendant from 3 proceeding pro per since the STAR CHAMBER was dissolved. Ergo, either Judge 4 McMurdie committed a crime or this Court is Arizona’s version of the STAR 5 CHAMBER. 6 The Sate has now gone so far as to allow a former member of Stuart’s defense 7 team to switch sides and work for the prosecution and inform the State of Stuart’s 8 attorney client privileged information thereby preventing Stuart from any possible 9 means of an adequate defense. 10 More simply stated, Swierski is sure; and has evidence establishing sufficient 11 good cause and support to believe; there is no possibility Stuart will receive a fair trial 12 in this Court due to the previous rulings of this Court and the criminal acts committed 13 against Stuart by the State’s agents. 14 V. Counsel cannot be effective in this STAR CHAMBER 15 THEREFORE; As Stuart’s forced counsel, Swierski hereby request that he be 16 withdrawn from this case as Stuart’s counsel as a final attempt to prevent this Court 17 from framing Stuart through: the destruction of all exculpatory evidence; committing 18 numerous acts of perjury; coercing witnesses; threatening Stuart; falsely imprisoning 19 Stuart; and other heinous un-American activities; and on the condition that this Court 20 agrees to all of the following demands: 21 a. This Court to allow Swierski to remain as advisory counsel for 22 Defendant; and 23 b. Stuart will not be held in contempt of court and/or once again falsely 24 imprisoned for asserting his rights, in this instant case, to represent himself in this 25 matter; and 26</p><p>9 of 21 1 c. All of the pleadings authored by; co-authored by; researched by; and/or 2 otherwise involved with Stuart and/or Stuart’s counsel not be stricken from the record 3 and be responded to by the State; and 4 d. To adhere to the A.R.Crim.P. Rules in this mater, including without 5 limitations, all previous, current and future rulings; and 6 e. To a 90 day continuance to allow Stuart to prepare for trial; and 7 f. That Stuart be allowed to exam the decedent’s medical/dental records, or 8 in the alternative to Stuart examining the decedent’s record, the State stipulate on and 9 for the record that the decedent’s tooth was chipped after the decedent kidnapped 10 Stuart and while the decedent was attempting to murder Stuart to prevent Stuart from 11 escaping from the kidnapping. 12 VI. All other counsels have withdrawn: 13 a. Stuart’s first hired counsel withdrew due to the fact: 14 1. They guaranteed Stuart this Court would follow the law and not 15 raise Stuart’s bond just because then County Attorney Andrew Thomas was using this 16 case to garner media attention claiming he would increase the bond irrespective of 17 Arizona law; this Court did violate the law and without cause did raise Stuart’s bond. 18 2. They guaranteed Stuart this Court would follow the law and not 19 arrest Stuart for an I.R.S. letter that did NOT affect Stuart’s bond; yet Charbel lied to 20 Judge Baca by falsely claiming the I.R.S. confiscated Stuart’s bond and did obtain a 21 warrant under false pretenses to have Stuart falsely arrested. 22 This law firm immediately withdrew after these two crimes were committed by 23 this Court against Stuart because they believed there was no way to stop this Court 24 from framing Stuart. 25</p><p>26</p><p>10 of 21 1 b. The second law firm withdrew after Stuart was falsely imprisoned for 2 eight (8) months for filing a false document into a public office when in fact the 3 document was not false and was not filed into a public office; it was entered into this 4 Court’s record in open court and Charbel witnessed the entering of the document into 5 this Court’s record in open court; yet Charbel once again committed perjury to have 6 Stuart falsely imprisoned. The documents contained a signed order from Judge Steinle 7 dismissing Stuart from all liability in this matter; an order that Charbel does not want 8 the jury or the general public to have any knowledge of. In fact, Charbel had the order 9 sealed by this Court. Also in fact, Stuart is therefore “be[ing] subject for the same 10 offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” in violation of the 5 th Amendment 11 to the U.S. Constitution. 12 c. The third attorney was public defender Tyler Harrison (“Harrison”) who 13 violated A.R.Crim.P. by never entering a Notice of Appearance as required by law 14 (See; inter alia, A.R.Crim.P Rule 6.3(a)); and withdrew without having another public 15 defender ready to proceed (See; inter alia, A.R.Crim.P Rule 6.3(c)). This Court again 16 violated Stuart’s due process of law and substantive rights by allowing Harrison to act 17 as counsel without a Notice of Appearance and further violate Stuart’s rights by 18 allowing Harrison to withdraw. 19 Harrison also allowed paralegal Carla Bartschi (“Bartschi”), known as ‘crazy 20 Carla’ due to her admitted schizophrenia, under permission from her Arizona BAR 21 licensed attorney John Friedeman to attend attorney client meetings to assist Stuart 22 and Harrison in Stuart’s defense and now this Court has allowed Bartschi to switch 23 sides and work with the prosecution; and inform the prosecution of Stuart’s 24 confidential attorney client privileged information. 25</p><p>26</p><p>11 of 21 1 Bartschi did in fact act on the behest of Harrison, and on behalf of Harrison, 2 when she attended the only viewing of Stuart’s vehicle when Harrison could not 3 attend the viewing. Bartschi reported directly to Harrison concerning any discoveries 4 from the viewing, and supplied pictures to Harrison from the viewing. 5 NOTE: This Court should note that Bartschi recently ran for “Governor”</p><p>6 of the group known as ‘The Restore American Plan’ (“TRAP”) in which</p><p>7 she claims she possesses firearms for “when the time is right,” yet she has filed a police report claiming the firearm(s) were stolen. Prosecutor 8 Charbel is also aware that Bartschi is committing fraud upon the State to 9 unlawfully obtain Food Stamps and/or Welfare support by falsely 10 claiming she does not earn any income due to the fact her employing 11 attorney pays her in cash ‘under the table’ so she can continue to defraud 12 the State. Bartschi also had 2 warrants out for her arrest that have</p><p>13 somehow disappeared from the record.</p><p>14 d. The fourth attorney was public defender John Johnson (“Johnson”) who 15 violated A.R.Crim.P. by never entering a Notice of Appearance as required by law 16 (See; inter alia, A.R.Crim.P Rule 6.3(a)); and withdrew without having another public 17 defender ready to proceed law (See; inter alia, A.R.Crim.P Rule 6.3(c)). This Court 18 again violated Stuart’s due process of law and substantive rights by allowing Johnson 19 to act as counsel without a Notice of Appearance and further violate Stuart’s rights by 20 allowing Johnson to withdraw. 21 e. Another attorney attempted to assist Stuart in obtaining bail and this 22 Court ordered that the attorney’s attempt be stricken from this Court’s record because 23 the attorney had not entered a proper notice of appearance, and that ALL attorneys 24 must enter a notice of appearance in this matter to be heard. Yet later, this Court 25 violated its own decision and ordered that attorneys do not have to enter a notice of 26 appearance when Stuart attempted to remove an attorney, Johnson, who was nothing</p><p>12 of 21 1 more than a prosecutor’s assistant who failed to enter a notice of appearance pursuant 2 to Rule 6.3(a). 3 Accordingly, this Court has in its own record prima facie evidence that this 4 Court has in fact invoked rule(s) to harm Stuart and later refused to allow the same 5 rule(s) to be invoked that would have saved Stuart, in its criminal act to further harm 6 Stuart. This Court’s blatant violation of the Rules of Procedures and its own orders as 7 a means to continue this malicious prosecution is this Court’s admission that this 8 Court will violate any rule and/or law to frame Stuart. 9 f. Yet even another attorney, Michael Kielsky (“Kielsky”), not hired by or 10 representing Stuart, did attend one of the hearings in this matter and witnessed this 11 Court commit numerous crimes against Stuart. This Court then ordered Kielsky 12 arrested and charged with threatening a witness. This Court dropped the charges once 13 Kielsky agreed that he would not be a witness for Stuart and deny that he saw this 14 Court commit the criminal acts against Stuart. 15 VII. Crimes by State agents: 16 Either way, if this Court chooses to prevent Swierski from withdrawing and/or 17 if this Court allows Swierski to withdraw, this Court has admitted to all of the 18 previous and following statements and allegations as such are all true and have been 19 admitted and/or confessed to by a state agent in words and/or actions. 20 a. Phoenix Police Department Homicide Detective Paul Dalton (“Dalton”) 21 This Court is well aware and has evidence supporting the factual allegation that 22 Dalton has committed at least eight (8) felonies on behalf of the State to commence 23 and/or continue the false and malicious prosecution of Stuart. 24 1. Dalton committed a felony when he refused to collect Stuart’s 25 clothing as ordered by the warrant because they had the decedent’s blood on them and 26</p><p>13 of 21 1 would have proven incontrovertibly that the decedent Orville Thomas Beasley the 2 Third (“Beasley” and/or “decedent”) was partially inside of Stuart’s vehicle when 3 Beasley was shot; Dalton has confessed to this felony in his deposition in the civil 4 case Beasley, et al. v. Stuart. 5 2. Dalton committed a felony when he refused to collect Stuart’s 6 blood, as ordered by the warrant, which would have proven incontrovertibly that 7 Stuart was sober at the time he was kidnapped and assaulted by the decedent; 8 3. Dalton committed a felony when he refused to collect Stuart’s 9 urine, as ordered by the warrant, which would have proven incontrovertibly that Stuart 10 was sober at the time he was kidnapped and assaulted by the decedent; 11 4. Dalton committed a felony when he refused to allow Stuart to 12 receive medical attention; which would have proven incontrovertibly that Beasley had 13 attacked and temporarily injured Stuart’s organ(s) before Beasley was shot and Stuart 14 escaped the kidnapping; 15 5. Dalton committed a felony when he eavesdropped on Stuart and 16 Stuart’s fiancé’s private conversation with ‘hidden’ and/or ‘concealed’ audio/video 17 recording device(s) after Stuart had requested an attorney and Dalton assured Stuart 18 and Stuart’s fiancé that they could have ‘private’ time together; 19 6. Dalton committed perjury to 2 Grand Juries by falsely claiming the 20 decedent did not attack and/or injure Stuart even after questioned by the Grand Juror’s 21 directly; Dalton has confessed to these felonies in his deposition in the civil case 22 Beasley, et al. v. Stuart. 23 7. Dalton committed a felony when he destroyed the original notes 24 written by himself and other officers and then filed and/or recorded ‘re-written’ false 25 and/or forged documents into a public office; this Court falsely imprisoned Stuart for 26</p><p>14 of 21 1 his attorneys entering evidence into this Court proving Stuart’s innocence by claiming 2 that entering documents into court are the same as entering the documents into a 3 public office, so this Court cannot now claim that Dalton entering false documents 4 into this Court is not the same as filing and/or recording documents into a public 5 office. 6 b. Maricopa County prosecutor Susie Charbel (“Charbel”) 7 This Court is well aware and has evidence supporting the factual allegation that 8 Charbel has committed at least eight (8) felonies on behalf of the State to commence 9 and/or continue the false and malicious prosecution of Stuart. 10 1. Charbel committed a felony when she obtained a warrant for 11 Stuart’s arrest by committing perjury to Judge Baca by claiming the I.R.S. had 12 confiscated Stuart’s bond when the I.R.S. did not even attempt to confiscate the bond; 13 Charbel’s criminal act caused Stuart to be falsely arrested and wrongfully imprisoned 14 until such a time as a judge reviewed the letter and ordered Stuart released because the 15 letter did not contain any mention of confiscating Stuart’s bond; 16 2. Charbel committed a felony when she falsely claimed Stuart had 17 filed false and/or forged documents into a public office when she witnessed Stuart’s 18 attorney handed said documents to a judge in open court to be entered as evidence; 19 3. Charbel committed a felony when she suborned the perjury 20 committed by Dalton to two (2) Grand Juries to obtain a false indictment against 21 Stuart in violation of , inter alia, A.R.S. §§ 13-418, 13-419 and others; 22 4. Charbel committed a felony when she attempted to coerce a Pre- 23 trial Services employee, a State agent, to write false statements claiming Stuart had 24 violated the conditions of his release when Charbel personally knew Stuart had not 25 violated any of the conditions; 26</p><p>15 of 21 1 5. Charbel committed a felony when she did coerce a Pre-trial 2 Services supervisor, a State agent, to write false statements claiming Stuart had 3 violated the conditions of his release when the employee refused; and when Charbel 4 personally knew Stuart had not violated any of the conditions; 5 6. Charbel committed a felony when she attempted to coerce Stuart’s 6 primary witnesses’ ex-boyfriend into filing false charges against Stuart’s primary 7 witness so Charbel could have said witness arrested and intimidated into changing her 8 statement; 9 7. Charbel committed a felony when she purposefully concealed 10 Stuart’s vehicle from the defense team for approximately nine (9) months after a State 11 employee removed the tarp Stuart’s attorney covered the vehicle with; so the rain and 12 other natural elements could destroy the exculpatory evidence on the exterior of the 13 vehicle thereby causing the vehicle which was originally exculpatory evidence to 14 become inculpatory evidence due to the destruction of blood evidence that was on the 15 vehicle; 16 8. Charbel committed a felony when she purposefully concealed 17 the fact the decedent’s tooth was chipped when such most likely occurred during the 18 decedent’s kidnapping and violent assault upon Stuart to conceal evidence that a 19 struggle occurred between the decedent and Stuart while Stuart was escaping from the 20 decedent/kidnapper. 21 c. This Court has deprived Stuart of almost of all his substantial rights 22 through this Court’s numerous unlawful rulings 23 This Court is well aware and has evidence supporting the factual allegation that 24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>16 of 21 1 this Court always rules in favor of the prosecution, even to the extent of invoking 2 rules to harm Stuart then denying Stuart’s substantive right to invoke the same rule to 3 further harm Stuart. 4 1. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 5 by invoking Rule 6.3(a) “Notice of Appearance” to prevent Stuart from being released 6 from being unlawfully incarcerated when the attorney had filed a Notice of 7 Appearance; 8 2. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 9 by later denying Stuart the substantive right to invoke the same Rule, Rule 6.3(a) 10 “Notice of Appearance,” to prevent this case from being dismissed for the public 11 defenders and this Court’s violations of Stuart’s substantive rights. 12 3. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 13 by denying Stuart the substantive right to self-representation in violation of Rule 14 6.1(c); 15 4. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 16 by allowing the State to violate Rule 16.1 seven (7), or more times to allow the State 17 to answer when said answer must by law be precluded and this Court was required to 18 rule in favor of Stuart; 19 5. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 20 by allowing the State to violate Rule 16.1 seven (7), or more, times to allow the State 21 to answer when said answer must by law be precluded and this Court was required to 22 rule in favor of Stuart and then ruling in favor of the State’s precluded motions to 23 unlawfully continue the malicious and false prosecution of Stuart; 24 6. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 25 by ordering Stuart to undergo a Rule 11 evaluation; then after Stuart successfully 26</p><p>17 of 21 1 completed the evaluation by being deemed “competent” threatened Stuart with false 2 imprisonment if Stuart attempted to proceed pro per. 3 7. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 4 by allowing this case to continue after the State has unlawfully interviewed and/or 5 deposed a former paralegal that worked with Stuart’s public defender Tyler Harrison; 6 8. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 7 by allowing this case to continue after the State has unlawfully obtained attorney 8 client privileged and/or confidential information and/or strategies; 9 9. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 10 by allowing this case to continue after the State has used unlawfully obtained attorney 11 client privileged information and/or strategy as the basis for the State’s unlawful 12 motions to eviscerate all of Stuart’s possible defenses. 13 10. This Court violated Arizona Law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics 14 by allowing this case to continue after this Court allowed the State to purposefully 15 destroy all of the exculpatory evidence. 16 / 17 Summary 18 This Court and the State agent’s crimes; and violations of due process of law; 19 and deprivation of Stuart’s substantive rights under color of law has created a situation 20 wherein it is impossible for Stuart to receive a fair trial and put on an adequate 21 defense against the State’s false allegations. 22 The State is allowing and assisting crimes to be committed against Stuart, an 23 innocent man, to assist the State agent’s in evading prosecution for their criminal acts 24 that the State has evidence said agents have committed. 25</p><p>26</p><p>18 of 21 1 The State is required to seek justice, not seek a conviction. Yet ALL of the 2 State’s agent’s actions have been felonious and have been in furtherance of seeking a 3 false conviction of Stuart. Accordingly, the State’s agent’s actions are prime facie 4 evidence said agents are well aware that Stuart is innocent and/or justified and this 5 Court should therefore rule against those that this Court has evidence and knowledge 6 have committed felonies; and rule in favor of the man this Court has evidence and 7 knowledge is innocent and/or justified. 8 It is now impossible for Swierski and/or Stuart to supply an adequate defense 9 for Stuart due to the criminal acts committed against Stuart by the State and its agents. 10 Conclusion: 11 In closing, Swierski knows that Stuart is innocent; the State’s agents know that 12 Stuart is innocent; this Court knows that Stuart is innocent. If anyone involved in this 13 matter had ever even for a second believed that Stuart might have been guilty, the 14 State’s agents and this Court would have not committed over one hundred (100) 15 violations of Laws and Rules and would not have destroyed ALL of the exculpatory 16 evidence. The State’s agent’s and this Court’s actions are criminal, heinous, and 17 treasonous; and have put this Court and the entire judicial system in disrepute; and 18 have made it a functional impossibility for Stuart and/or any attorney to prove Stuart’s 19 innocence. 20 It is also impossible to have a fair and impartial trial in this Court now that the 21 State agents and this Court have either destroyed and/or allowed to be destroyed ALL 22 of the exculpatory evidence. 23 The indictment itself is based on perjurous statements and must by law, 24 pursuant to Basurto and others (as described in previous pleadings), be dismissed. 25</p><p>26</p><p>19 of 21 1 THEREFORE; this Court has left Swierski no choice but to withdraw as 2 forced counsel pursuant to Swierski’s oath as Swierski cannot be a party to the 3 criminal acts Swierski has knowledge and evidence this Court and the State’s agents 4 are perpetrating on Stuart; a man this Court and the State agents have knowledge and 5 evidence is innocent and/or justified under Arizona law. 6 FURTHERMORE; Stuart states on and for the record and as an offer of proof: 7 “ Stuart does not understand the charges against him since said charges violate the 8 legislative intent and unambiguous wording of A.R.S. §§ 13-418, 13-419, 13-1304; 9 and are based on perjurous statements made to a Grand Jury by the State’s agent 10 known as Detective Dalton which was suborned by the State’s agent known as 11 Prosecutor Charbel; and that it is continued based primarily on the State’s agents’ 12 purposeful destruction of all of the exculpatory evidence; witness tampering; violation 13 of State law by the State’s agents; and purposeful violation of due process of law 14 under color of law.” 15 ALSO FURTHERMORE; this pleading MUST be responded to under oath 16 and penalty of perjury, by the appropriate State agent who has knowledge and 17 authority to respond, with specificity and listing laws and facts without misquoting 18 jurisprudence. Absent all the previous conditions, the State agent responding to this 19 pleading MUST by law be held in contempt of court for their commission of fraud 20 upon this Court and the purposeful deprivation of Stuart’s substantive rights under 21 color of law. 22</p><p>23</p><p>24 Stuart reserves the right to release this pleading publicly in the </p><p>25 interest of justice and safety; and to inform the body politic.</p><p>26</p><p>20 of 21 1 DATED this 12th day of April, 2011 2</p><p>3 By ______, without prejudice 4 John Stuart, sui juris Defendant UNDER PROTEST 5 </p><p>6</p><p>7</p><p>8</p><p>9</p><p>10</p><p>11</p><p>12</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>15</p><p>16</p><p>17</p><p>18</p><p>19</p><p>20</p><p>21</p><p>22</p><p>23</p><p>24</p><p>25</p><p>26</p><p>21 of 21</p>