I had to split this into multiple parts. This was transcribed using OpenAI Whisper, so there may be some issues / poor punctuation. But enjoy Brook-se-ing your friends.

PART 1

I want to first state again for the record that I do not identify by that name, nor do I consent to being called that name. Your honor, with all respect, I'm merely asking you, do you have the full judicial power of the state or is this military power? I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're asking me, sir. I'm asking. Is this legal basis? Are you making that request? I'm asking for the record. Is this a common law, common law court or an admiralty court? What are we in here? And I'm requesting an affidavit that you, your honor, have no bias, no conflict of interest or no interest in the outcome of this case. And the reason why I want to state this clearly for the record, mainly is because of the bias that's been shown. I have not been getting any certified copies of any requests that I've made, which I was told by this court to address in my communication forms for anything that I that I may need. I've done that. I've complied with that. Every time I've needed something of the court pertaining to documents, I've done it the way the court has asked me. And I've always stated that I wanted everything to be certified. I have yet to even get that. My court docket sheet was not a certified copy. When I asked your honor of your oath of office, I asked for that to be certified. You stated for the record that you would not give me a certified copy of your oath of office, which you are required to show if I ask for it. I've brought up my Sixth Amendment constitutional right that has been pretty much discarded. And that is based on the fact that I have the right to face my accuser, which would be the plaintiff, state of Wisconsin, in this matter. They have yet to show that a claim is is I mean, a living human being can only make a claim. An entity cannot make a claim. I've requested for the complaint to be provided. The complaint from November 23 of 2021, the amended complaint from November 29 of 2021, the second amended complaint from January 12 of this year, 2022. I have yet to see those. There was no record of a bond in my docket sheet. I'm asking that I asked for that to be verified by proof that hasn't been provided. There's so many biases, clear biases in questions that are not being asked based on judicial determinations made by your honor. You look at the discrepancies and I think they're clear. I think at minimum, I deserve for the subject matter jurisdiction to be verified and proven. I've raised that issue numerous times, pretty much every day, every time I come before your court, your honor, I address that and it has yet to be proven. My filings have been disregarded, even though they've been filed into the record, even though they've been time stamped. I haven't got the original copies of any of them, which I'm supposed to get. As we sit here today, I'm still not even understanding the nature and cause of the charges. That hasn't even been proven. Can that be provided in any way? I'm basically sitting here confused because I don't understand why these proceedings are allowed to continue when there's so many things that have not been provided. They haven't been provided in my discovery. They haven't been provided to me by being brought to my power where I'm housed in the jail. I'm without so much information, valid information to this matter and I believe that it should be verified and it should be proven for the record. And if not, I move for this case to be dismissed for failure to appear by the plaintiff and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Everything that I'm saying has merit and it has validity. As we sit here today, I'm still being charged with charges that shouldn't even exist based on the testimony that we've heard for the last few days. There's so many things left to still be proven. The prosecution team hasn't even proven that they're licensed to practice law in Wisconsin. They haven't proven are they just bar association members or do they have state issued licenses? That has not been proven, which I've raised that issue for the record. I'm not even sure if that was even recorded in the docket sheet. There's so many things and your honor, you still haven't stated for the record if you have full judicial power of the state or is this military power? That hasn't been proven. Nothing has been proven. Not subject matter jurisdiction, not licenses to practice law. My Sixth Amendment right has been basically trampled over. No complaints have been shown. Neither of the three that I've requested by the way that you told me to request them by inmate communication. Nothing is certified that I get copies of when I clearly ask for them to be certified and to be filed into the record. This to the point where your honor, you should recuse yourself from the presiding at this point. If you're not going to abide by the oath that you swore, which was in your oath, correct? You swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. You swore to protect we the people. That is not being done here. If every valid argument that I raised is taken by the court as a sign of disrespect or a sign of trying to intentionally be disruptive or causing a problem, when I'm merely seeking understanding because I don't understand. I'm merely seeking to understand why this information has yet to be provided and we're this far into this matter. And there's still no verified proof. Even as I sit now saying this, there's still no proof being provided. Zero. How is this case allowed to continue without these documents and filings being verified? Is there any legal factual basis that can state why this information has not been provided? Why the docket sheet is incorrect? Why there's so much on the docket sheet that should be on record that's not even in there that if we had the the recordings of the record, they would see was brought up numerous times that that doesn't even show up. I'm just I'm just asking for your honor to be fair, which is another right that I have the right to a fair trial and the right to an impartial jury. I can go on and on and on about what's not what's not being done. I have a year and I say I have the right to face my accuser. Where's where's the injured party? Who's making the claim? I asked your honor numerous times for your honor's name. You wouldn't answer. I asked, did you have a claim against me? You did not answer. I asked the whole courtroom. Did anyone have a claim against me? No one said anything. Which you stated for the record, a nonresponsive answer. A nonresponsive answer is is an agreement. Which would be a tactic agreement by you, your honor, that you don't have to answer these questions that you should be answering. I have that right. The plaintiff in this matter, which was stated by witnesses in testimony to be the state of Wisconsin. But when I asked, do they see the state of Wisconsin present in the courtroom? The question is shut down, which is a valid question. The plaintiff should be present in this matter. Where is the plaintiff? Who's bringing the who's bringing the claim? Because we know an entity can't bring a claim. It has to be a living, breathing human being. No one is stated for the record if they're the injured party. Not your honor, not the prosecutors, not anyone in the court has stated to be an injured party in this matter. No one. Not one person. I have the right to demand that the court place in the evidence any unrevealed contract. Has that been provided to me? Have that been placed in the evidence? I would like to see it. Which is my right. I have the right to inform the jury about the truth in their duty, in their rights. That's the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment. But I'm repeatedly told to shut the question down when this is valuable information that the jury should be privileged to know. They deserve to know. Once they were chosen to sit on this jury, why are we keeping information away from them that they deserve to know? They ultimately have the power. They decide the matter. Why are we keeping information, valuable information from their knowledge? That's that's a disservice to the jury. And frankly, it's a disservice to the court that they're not allowed to hear things that they should know, that they should be informed of. It's our right to inform them of everything that they have the power to know, to do and to know. They deserve that much. It would be it would be a travesty for them to make a decision without being fully informed. And these are all valid, valid things. I have the right to protest and object if any of my rights or demands are not being met. I've done that numerous times only to be shut down. Numerous times. I've raised the issues that I didn't consent to anything. That may have been suggested on behalf of my former attorneys. I've never even consented to them making a plea on my behalf. I haven't. As a matter of fact, when it comes to a plea, I haven't even had the opportunity to entertain any plea that may have been suggested by the prosecution. We haven't even we haven't even talked about that. Not one time was it ever brought to my attention that the prosecution even wanted to offer a plea. That's another issue. I have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of this court, which I've done numerous times. I have the right to demand that the code be construed in harmony with the common law. I just raised that. I'm constantly referred to as pro se when I've raised the issue that I'm pro per. I have the right to conduct my defense pro per free from professional restrictions imposed upon licensed attorneys, which this court is well aware that I am not a licensed attorney. In fact, the court is also aware that I only had three days to prepare for a trial that the prosecution has been been prepared for for a whole year. We see these boxes right here. This box alone is 45 or 50 pounds full of. So much information, I haven't even gone through half of it. It was stated for the record that the discovery in its entirety was brought to my housing unit on the 29th of September. Which trial was scheduled, that would be a Thursday, which trial was scheduled for Monday. How can I possibly go through all that on a paperwork, all the the digital discovery and things of that nature? How can I go through all of that and be prepared in three days? That's a clear bias. I did not have time to prepare for this. Everything I'm doing is off the top of my head, winging it, taking it as it comes. When the court is well aware that I was not prepared, I raised the issue that it should be an adjournment at least at the minimum, it should be adjournment because of that fact, at least to let me go through all the discovery. That was denied. No valid reason was stated for that when your honor knew there is no possible way, humanly possible that I could be ready for a trial of this magnitude in three days. That's clear bias. I have the right to face the injured party claiming damages. That's under Article Three and the Sixth Amendment. I raised that issue again. Where's the injured party? Is the injured party present in court right now? Can anyone can anyone make a claim against me? Can you make a claim against me, your honor? Do you know of anyone that can make a claim against me, your honor? Can anyone right now in court, anyone make a claim against me? And because of that, your honor, the motion to dismiss should be granted based on that alone. There's there's no injured party in this matter. So who makes the claim? Who? I have the right to put the judge on notice of my intent to appeal in any ruling decisions during the case. You stated for the record that I would have to wait until the appealing process. But my right is that I can raise that issue during the case, which I've attempted to do. That's been shut down. I have the right to specifically reserve all of my rights, which I do at the beginning. I have the right to say what I want and to be heard under the First Amendment. And when I attempt to do that, it's taken as a slight to the court, a disrespect to the court or me intentionally coming into the court to be disrespectful, which I've stated that that is not my intention. Never, never is it my intention. I never intend to walk into your courtroom, your honor, and be disrespectful intentionally. I never come into this courtroom to disrespect anyone. But because I don't understand, I raise these issues. Because they have validity. I have the right to object to any statement made by the judge or the prosecution. I've done that and been repeatedly shut down. Without a, without a, without a lawful explanation. I've repeatedly asked the court for a motion for a finding of fact to determine if things are being done legally. I've been denied that numerous times without merit. Which is also my right. I have the right to refuse to judge at any time, which is also a right. I have the right to a speedy and fair trial by impartial jury. I think it's safe to say that my speedy trial right has definitely been violated because this matter has been taking place for roughly a year. I've never consented to waiving anything related to a speedy trial. And if that was done, it was done without my consent or without my knowledge. We're way past the speedy trial date, way past when the change of venue motion was brought up. I believe that was the first time I came before, Your Honor, in early March. I want to say March 11th of this year when the change of venue motion came into play. It was decided by Your Honor that that wouldn't be decided until the 20th of June, I believe. That's over the 90 day mark right there for a speedy trial. That was denied. I still don't understand how that was denied when it's clearly obvious that at minimum the venue should have been changed based on the fact of the magnitude of the matter. There's no possible way anyone in this county would not have some type of connection or some type of knowledge, whether they were told something by someone that they may know. The news reporting alone, just that alone, there's no way that this trial should be taking place in Waukesha County. That's obvious. That's obvious from the way the motion was presented. The coverage alone, the political campaign ads that plastered the defendant's face all over the TV every single day, every time a political campaign was brought up, it made reference to this incident. Every single time. The fact that people have children that go to the same schools in this county, that people may have worked with the same people in this county, you yourself, Your Honor, stated that you at one time worked with the father of one of the people that was injured in this matter. That is a clear conflict of interest right there. You also stated for the record that not only did you work with this father, but that at one time they may have donated to your, I don't know if it was to you becoming a judge or I would have to look through the docket, but you said it on the record that they donated money to a cause of yours. You also stated that when you had gained knowledge of the incident and that their family member was injured in an incident, that you reached out via phone. I don't recall if it was text message or an actual phone conversation, but you put that on the record. You also stated that the nature of your relationship was strictly professional. I don't know about you, Your Honor, but I've worked numerous jobs and I know what professional relationships is in personal relationships. I've never had the cell phone number of anyone that was a personal relationship saved to my phone that I can reach out immediately when I learn something. That would constitute a personal relationship of some kind, whether hanging out from time to time having a cup of coffee or hanging out time to time grabbing a beer or hanging out from time to time watching a game or anything of that nature. It would definitely be more than just strictly professional. Devastated for the record. Again, I go back to the Sixth Amendment again in terms of when I asked for the motion for the evidence motion that I raised. That was denied without any explanation. That would be strictly to placing the evidence in the unrevealed contract. That's under the Sixth Amendment. Clearly there's been repeated, repeated and repeated violations of my Sixth Amendment. We all know that the United States Constitution is the law of the land, period. It trumps everything. We also know that any law repugnant of the Constitution is null and in void. We know that. There's still no basis for the motions being shot down. Why was I not granted the motion for finding the fact? Why did it take so long for me to be brought my entire motion for discovery? Why was the motion to prove jurisdiction not verified? Why was the motion to dismiss the case for all the reasons I said not being granted? Which brings me to the motion to subpoena witnesses. I did everything that was asked of me by the court pertaining those subpoenas. It was understood by the court that this is my first time ever having to do this. I didn't understand how to properly fill out the subpoenas at which the prosecution volunteered that they would give assistance.