Cherron Marie Phillips indicted

[Chados]

I think that the judge is showing tremendous patience. That lie to the pretrial folks would have got her hauled up on an order to show cause before most state judges I've been in front of. They might have let her go, just like this judge did, but not before scaring the hell out of her first. Cherron-Marie: Phillips needs a good, old-fashioned come-to-Jesus meeting. Because at this rate, she's going directly to jail, not passing "go" and definitely not collecting $200, on or about July 29.

[morrand]

On July 9, AUSA Nathan Stump filed a motion with the court for a Faretta hearing and appointment of standby counsel. I don't know whether it is frustration or vigilance (or, for that matter, adherence to form) that drove Mr. Stump to point out that:

As the Supreme Court noted in Faretta v. California, “[t]he right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom,” and “the trial judge may terminate the self-representation by a defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46.

From which, he goes on to suggest that

[W]ith the trial fast approaching, it would be prudent for the Court to hold a formal hearing on this issue, to determine whether the defendant still wishes to proceed pro se, and if so, whether her decision to waive her right to counsel is knowing and voluntary, clear and unequivocal....

Based on the progress of the case so far, those may be lofty goals, particularly the last two, but I suppose it's worth a shot.

[morrand]

And hot on the heels of that, comes the government's "Notice of Rule 404 Evidence." The government proposes to present:

Evidence that, during the federal prosecution of her brother in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the defendant was repeatedly disruptive in the courtroom, filed numerous documents in the case, including a “Summons to Appear,” and ultimately became the subject of an Executive Committee Order....

Evidence that in March 2011, the defendant—using the names “River Tali” and “Cherron Phillips El”—caused a package to be delivered to the Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois that included (among other things) (a) a “Common Law Bill of Indictment” calling for the arrest of the Chief Judge; (b) an “Administrative Notice and Demand” authored by the defendant seeking a “remedy for the law I am currently accused of violating”; and (c) a “Commerical Affidavit” setting forth the necessary characteristics of a valid commercial lien....

Evidence that when the defendant was arrested on the indictment in this case, in November 2012, she repeatedly asked the arresting officers for their names and threatened to file liens on them.

Charming, but I guess not surprising.

ETA: They got the Faretta hearing, and Ms. Phillips apparently really does want to represent herself, but is getting standby counsel too. And, in a surprise decision, good news! Her curfew's been extended to 7:30 p.m.!

[notorial dissent]

I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who cares to really look, that, aside from being a serious whack job, she has a past history and propensity for being obstructive, disruptive, vindictive, and of not really doing herself any great favors at all along the way. I am guessing, that if she is allowed to go pro se, that the trial will be fully a three ring circus from day one, with mountains of meaningless paper filed despite the best efforts of the judge in the case.

I quite frankly don't think she is going to walk away from this case, unless the prosecution sleeps through the trial, the only real question is how much damage she is going to do to herself in the process.

[wserra]

Judge Shadur was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980. Not only has he seen it all, he's seen it all many times over.

This trial is not going to be a circus. Unfortunately.

[wserra]

It's worth linking to the entire govt 404(b) - prior bad acts - notice.

I'd say she should bring her toothbrush.

[notorial dissent]

I think this is a for sure case of shoudnta, hadnta , oughta. and she got the WRONG judge and prosecutor to try and pull any of it on.

I think a toothbrush and canceling any outstanding travel plans are definitely in order.

[rogfulton]

And her towel, if she hasn't lost it.

If she has, it might be a good time to prepare to panic.

[ArthurWankspittle]

She doesn't strike me as someone who "knows where their towel is".

[grixit]

Nothing hoopy about the tp movement.

[morrand]

And now the news.

Someone has been very, very busy this week. Ms. Phillips has moved to (a) dismiss the indictment, and (b) -- well, I'll let her explain:

MOTION FOR HEARING ON DEFAULT PURSUANT TO FRCP 55(2)(d)

Now comes River Bey herein as "Aggrieved Party" to request a hearing Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 55, to enter of effectuate judgment on (a) conduct accounting, (b) determine the amount of damages, (c) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; (d) or investigate any other matter and state the following:

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On May 28th, 2013 via T. Hoye, Notary Public a Judicial Notice/Affidavit of Discharge with attachments presented as pledged collateral and assigned to Case/Account No 1:12CR00872, as substitution of assets to secure personal property (private property), in the event of a default for the release of security interest, and/or lien on real property.

2. On May 30th, 2013, Plaintiff received the Judicial Notice along with the attachments.

3. As of July 22nd, 2013, Plaintiff has not responded to or rebutted the Judicial Notice/Affidavit of Discharge.

4. Whenever property is arrested or attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules.

5. That whenever process of maritime attachment and garnishments or process in rem is issued the execution of such process shall be stayed, or the property released, on the giving of security, to be approved by the court or clerk, or by stipulation of the parties, conditioned to answer the judgment of the court or of any appellate court.

WHEREFORE, River Bey respectfully moves this Honorable court to grant default judgment or show cause why further proceedings shall not be stayed on condition to answer the judgment and any other relief the court deems just and equitable.

By: /ss/ River Bey
Cherron M. Phillips
c/o P.O. Box 802625
Chicago Illinois [60680] [sic]

(non-OCR, punctuation cleaned up slightly)

As for the motion to dismiss indictment, the memorandum of law in support is three pages long, and I don't feel like typing it all out, but to summarize:

• I did not agree to seek assistance from a Bar Licensed Attorney (she had one appointed for standby last week)
• The Aggrieved Party (i.e., Ms. Phillips) "has not agreed to abandon her position in the private trust by waiving her rights and interest in the matter nor prejudice the defendant by performing to the public without adequate compensation to the private trust."
• The Aggrieved Party "rescinds the affirmative statement made in error that she is familiar with Federal Rules of Evidence and" FRCP, and furthermore, "that those rules are applicable to the Federal Codes and are for individuals licensed and under contract where there exists a legal relationship."
• "Further in light of the pending Default herein attached,"--no, I'm sorry, it's too much word salad to quote directly. Best I can tell, she's claiming that, by having complied with the terms of her pretrial release, she's mooted the need for either voir dire or the trial. There are some "I'm not under contract" arguments there too, for variety.
• The Government hasn't released her on presentation of substitute collateral.
• That the Private Trust has provided sufficient compensation for settlement and "is now awaiting Public Trust ratification." I take this to be the redemption argument. (Full quote on request.)
• That the Government can only sue on the same basis that a citizen could.

All of this was denied "for reasons stated in open court" (presumably, that they be wack) yesterday, the 25th. Whereupon, apparently figuring that it only failed because Judge Shadur didn't hear them the first time, Ms. Phillips immediately refiled the same motion and memorandum. This time, Judge Shadur rejected them as "totally lacking in merit," and furthermore, "Defendant's other unusual tendered documents are totally irrelevant to the case and are not accepted for filing." Trial stands for Monday, July 26.

Ms. Phillips did score one victory, of sorts. Somewhere in all of this, she apparently complained that she had never received a copy of the signed indictment. Aha! She actually caught out the court on that one! Except that Judge Shadur promptly corrected the problem by ordering that signed copies be given to her (and to the AUSA). This is a problem, since one of the local rules declares signed indictments to be restricted documents; Judge Shadur was, therefore, obligated to refer his order up to Chief Judge Castillo for ratification. Which, I guess, will be forthcoming, and not (I hope) to the detriment to the foreperson.

[notorial dissent]

"Aggrieved Party", now I like that, describes her to a T, I would say, just not in the way she would like it to.

OK, so on May 28th, she admits to filing a bogus pretend document, good move there Cherron, and plaintiff has not responded, probably still laughing themselves sick over it, or couldn't figure out which round file to send it to.

Yeah, sure, right River Bey, some other time when the court has quit laughing.

Denied, gee, can't imagine why!!!! Oh, my, I have a feeling Mon is not going to be a happy time for Cherron at this rate.

[JamesVincent]

Whenever property is arrested or attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules.

So she went full Maritime Law now. AFAIR "property" can't be arrested but a ship can.

That whenever process of maritime attachment and garnishments or process in rem is issued the execution of such process shall be stayed, or the property released, on the giving of security, to be approved by the court or clerk, or by stipulation of the parties, conditioned to answer the judgment of the court or of any appellate court.

And that clinches it. I don't remember a Maritime garnishment, is that using radishes on the side with lobster?

[Lambkin]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 5327.story

In an unusual hearing Friday, Phillips filed several unintelligible motions, questioned a federal judge on his loyalty to the Constitution and insisted that U.S. citizens would not comprise a jury of her peers.

"I hesitate to rank your statements in order of just how bizarre they are," said veteran U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur, who at one point attempted to explain to Phillips the meaning of the phrase, "garbage in, garbage out." As Phillips continued to press him on his allegiance to the Constitution, Shadur finally cut her off.

"Oh, come on!" he said. "I've had enough of this. We are in recess until Monday at 9:30."

[Famspear]

.....And that clinches it. I don't remember a Maritime garnishment, is that using radishes on the side with lobster?

In an unusual hearing Friday, Phillips filed several unintelligible motions, questioned a federal judge on his loyalty to the Constitution and insisted that U.S. citizens would not comprise a jury of her peers....

Hey, that's probably right -- she's a boat! So, a jury of her peers should consist of some aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, destroyers, a vacation cruise ship, a pirogue, a dinghy, and maybe a few assorted yachts.

[morrand]

Chicago, July 29:
Referring to her latest filings as "clotted nonsense," Judge Milton Shadur today deferred the trial of Cherron Phillips for one week and denied her bid to represent herself at trial. Citing a lack of confidence in here ability to represent herself effectively, Judge Shadur gave her the extra week for the purpose of either retaining her own counsel, or proving eligibility to be represented by the Federal Defender's office.

The decision capped a hearing which began with Ms. Phillips, who entered carrying a shopping bag of books and papers, entering an appearance as "River Bey" on her own behalf. Judge Shadur refused to address her as River Bey, stating that the wording of the indictment would not permit that. He then went on to ask for clarification on Ms. Phillips's filing on Friday, which stated in part that she wished to "rescind her affirmative statement in error" that she understood the rules of criminal procedure. Ms. Phillips answered that she was "not familiar with those books," and countered by asking whether someone would have to have a contract or allegiance to code, or be a member of the bar, to be bound by those rules, to which the judge answered no.

Judge Shadur went on to complain about Ms. Phillips's habit of deflecting questions without answering them, giving as an example her objections to the indictment on the grounds that it was issued in the name of the United States of America, rather than the United States. He then pointed out that both phrases appear in the Constitution, and questioned the logic of basing a complaint of unconstitutionality on that.

Stating that further disruptive conduct would place her at serious risk of mistrial, if presented to a jury, the judge asked what assurance Ms. Phillips could give that it would not continue, to which she made no reply. Citing her "extraordinarily bizarre" filings, and in particular her assertions about the relation between the government and the individual being one of debtor to creditor, Judge Shadur concluded that Ms. Phillips presented the picture of a recidivist disruptor. Though citing to precedent in the 7th Circuit for his decision, Judge Shadur found the most guidance in an unpublished 4th Circuit case, U.S. v. Joseph Brunson (per curiam), involving many filings which the judge found to be similar to Ms. Phillips's. In the face of this, Judge Shadur concluded that he could not try the case in an orderly fashion with the "virtual certainty" of a mistrial.

After a brief recess to allow Ms. Phillips to make some phone calls, she requested time to review the cases cited by the judge. He replied that there was nothing to review, and that she had demonstrated amply why she would not be permitted to represent herself. He then drew a distinction between a defendant with a mental illness, and one who is unable to defend her case effectively. Citing to both her "intransigence" and the disturbing nature of both her behavior and her "totally irrelevant and misguided filings," he asked what the point of reviewing the cases would be. Ms. Phillips replied that she wished to respond to the judge's statements.

Tracing a trail through her filings, Judge Shadur then stated that Ms. Phillips has been coming up with nonsense in response to the court's proceedings. He gave as an example Ms. Phillips's finding fault with the government's case under the Uniform Commercial Code, her subsequent "receding" from that position, followed by a return to that position in her filings last week, which he read from to demonstrate his point. Saying that there was no getting around its characterization as "clotted nonsense," he concluded that its claims that the sum of $3.5 million was owed by the court were "absurd."

Ms. Phillips objected to this characterization, and asked for the opportunity to respond in writing. The judge granted this, but stated that it would not extend the proceedings, and gave her one week both to come up with counsel and to prepare any response she wished to make. This time was excluded from the speedy-trial limitations.

For its part, the government, represented by Mr. Nathan Stump of the Southern District of Illinois, requested and was granted leave to appear at the next status hearing telephonically. That hearing is scheduled for August 7 at 9:15 a.m.

The aborted trial capped a morning session of court in which Judge Shadur demonstrated both his fluency in both common law and local rules, and his sense of humor, remarking at one instance that he did not want to roust an attorney, attending telephonically from the West Coast, excessively early, for fear of causing an "Eighth Amendment violation."

[Gregg]

Hey, that's probably right -- she's a boat! So, a jury of her peers should consist of some aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, destroyers, a vacation cruise ship, a pirogue, a dinghy, and maybe a few assorted yachts.

I know not about the rest, but more than a few dinghys would be peers.

[Chados]

Well, she got precisely what she wanted: Delay. I didn't expect that.

This will go on until Judge Shadur runs out of patience and does one of four things:

1) Appoints counsel, possibly pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards or a variation of the logic therein, then ultimately ejects Ms. Bey/Phillips from the courtroom or gags her (it will take that to shut her up);

2) Lets her (and the trial) go forth, and shutting her up and/or rebuking her before the jury;

3) Finds her in contempt and jams her for X-amount of time on a criminal contempt rap in Club Fed before trying again;

4) Jails her on civil contempt until such time as she gets with his program.

I forecast a variant of (1) above, with counsel being appointed over her objection and her being ultimately booted out of court. If he mistries it, he gives her what she wants: Delay. Sooner or later, he hopefully will figure that out.

Someone ought to send him a copy of Meads v. Meads.

[LightinDarkness]

Morrand, thanks for that great summary...I really enjoyed reading it. Hope you can do it again on future court dates!

[Lowlander]

Chicago, July 29:
Referring to her latest filings as "clotted nonsense,"

With apologies for being too-easily amused by metaphor, that two-word phrase just made my entire weekend.