The Story Unfolds

My trial was set for March 22nd, 2006 at 9:00AM. And with the problem I was having retrieving my belongings from the St. George City Police Department, I was afraid I was not going to be able to get them until the trial. For some reason, they were being kept in evidence. My options, as I understood them at the time was to have the trial moved up as close as I could so I wouldn't have to go so long without my bicycle, backpack, jacket, cellphone, and everything else the cops had stolen from me.

So, I filed a request for a hearing on dismissal. I was hoping that if the case was dismissed, I would be able to retrieve my belongings. As you know from several previous posts, my shoes were not made for walking! And it was starting to get chilly. And, well, the sheer principle of the matter. They had taken my things, and were holding them; both for no reason.

But, as it turned out, the problem was that Patrol Sargent Gordon McCracken had not filed the paperwork as he was supposed to, and that was the reason the evidence tech would not return my things. The evidence tech suggested I e-mail McCracken. I kept my message short and sweet:

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: My property
Gordon, this is Wesley, the homeless guy you arrested on Friday the 21st. I have been informed by Troy Porter, Evidence Technician with the St. George City Police, that you have not completed the paperwork concerning my property, and that he would not release it until you do.


Receiving no response by the following day, I e-mailed chief Marlon Stratton of the St. George City Police:

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: retrieving my belongings
Hello Chief, this is Wesley Campbell. I am writing to you because I have been unable to retrieve my belongings from the St. George City Police Department and would appreciate your assistance.
I have been in contact with Troy Porter, Evidence Technician, who has informed me that Gordon McCracken, Patrol Sergeant, has not completed the necessary paperwork concerning my backpack now held in evidence. Mr. Porter has informed me that he is unable to release my possessions until Mr. McCracken completes the paperwork.
Both Mr. Porter and I have e-mailed Mr McCracken to no avail.
Though there is a case pending against me, neither the backpack nor it's contents are relevant and may be returned. Furthermore, I am in need of the backpack and all of it's content for my chosen profession. Until I receive these belongings, I am unable to do my work or adequately prepare my defense.
Will you please take whatever actions are required to have my things released to me in a more timely fashion? I would appreciate it.
Thank you,
Wesley Campbell.


Mr. Stratton replied the same day with:

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:55:47 -0600
Wesley,
Thanks for the email. I will look in to it and see what we can do.
Chief Stratton.


The following day, I called up the evidence tech first thing and received a very enthusiastic greeting and assurance that I could meet him at the impound lot and retrieve my belongings. We made the appointment, and I did so.

Having my things negated my immediate need for a dismissal of the case for the purpose of retrieving my property, so I was not so concerned whether I got the hearing or not. It was a good thing too, because, though the hearing was granted, it was scheduled for December 10th, 2005.

In the hearing, I read the following statement:

It is my understanding, that, as a general rule, state and federal statutes are to be read in light of their respective constitutions. Though the state of Utah, being a republican form of government, has the authority, to write statutes, such statutes are not to be construed to impair or deny the rights of American Citizens. (Utah Cons. Article 1 Section 25) Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.
As a member of the Republic, I am a Sovereign American Citizen and therefore outside the jurisdiction of Utah statutes. I have never enumerated myself subject to the state of Utah, it's subdivisions, or any other State of the Union or the Federal Government. I am bound only by common law and reserve the inherent and inalienable rights, as secured by the Constitution of Utah Article 1 Section 8, to life and liberty. Which common law prohibits only the violation of another individual's right to life or liberty.
Neither of the charges, which the City of St. George has brought against me in this case, constitute actions violating any body's rights to life or liberty. Nor can the City of St. George provide evidence that I have ever waived my sovereignty status as a natural born American Citizen, which I am.
Therefore, it is my request to this court that this case be dismissed.


Though the judge did agree with me, he felt he needed to be reminded of any case law that supported my statement. I had not prepared myself to present any case law, though my notes were replete with them. However, I had not been allowed to take my backpack into the courtroom, and therefore did not have my notes handy.

The judge denied me the dismissal. I was prepared for that, though, and requested the trial be moved up to some date in January. This he was willing to do out of pity for not upholding the law, and much to the prosecutor's disapproval. The trial was set for January 18th, 2006.

I also asked for a copy of the police report, but the judge just informed me that I needed to file that request in writing with the city prosecutor. At this point, I still did not have any idea what McCracken had said that would cause the prosecutor to believe he had a legitimate case against me.