I have just read the criminal trial and sentencing transcripts filed January 3, 2019, as Documents 193,195,196,and 197 in The United States of America vs. Michael Wayne Parsons lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (case no. 4:17-cr-03038-JMG-CRZ).
This three day trial took place August 28-30, 2018, with sentencing on December 7, 2018. The indictment involved a felon in possession of a firearm charge. Despite the extensive efforts of the defendant to thwart the prosecution’s evidence and witness testimony, and even the jurisdiction and laws of the United States of America, at the conclusion of the trial the jury found the defendant guilty. A short news brief by the Department of Justice was released on the sentencing date.
In this article, I am going to extract portions of the courtroom testimony which illustrate the various tactics which Mike Parsons employed to counter the clear and convincing case against him. Since I am referencing only three percent of these 4 documents, note that these selections exclude vital testimonies and discussions of most of the exhibits referenced in this trial which were presented to the jury. (All bolding of transcript quotations is mine.)
Michael Wayne Parsons promotes himself as an Ambassador entitled to Diplomatic Immunity, using illegitimate legal documents created by a Canadian-based sovereign citizen group.
On Day One, the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, introduced the prosecution as Mr. Jan W. Sharp and Mr. Jody B. Mullin, Assistant U. S. Attorneys; and the counsel for the defense as Mr. Donald L. Schense, Attorney at Law.
The Judge began by declaring, “This court has jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution and 18, United States Code, 3231 with respect to all charged offenses against the laws of the United States and Mr. Parsons has been indicted or charged with violating 18, U. S. C., Section 922. A plea of not guilty has been entered on his behalf.”
Right from the start of the trial, the defendant Michael Parsons interrupted the Judge’s commencement of proceedings by saying “Your Honor–.” Wherefore the Court replied, “Just a minute. And this matter’s ready to proceed to trial. Counsel, would you please enter your appearance…all right. And for the defense..”. To which Parsons asks, “May I stand?”
The Court: You have counsel at this point of time.
The Defendant: No, No, your Honor, I do not have counsel. That’s–
The Court: Well actually you do. What–Enter your appearance, please.
The Defendant: I object. I do not consent to this man in any form, shape, or fashion, I have never consented to him in any form, shape or fashion to do anything on my behalf.
The Court: We will take this up in a minute. Enter your appearance, please.
Mr. Schense: Good morning–
The Defendant: I object to his placing an appearance.
Mr. Schense: Good morning, Your Honor. Don Schense, counsel for Mr.Michael Parsons, who is present, as the Court knows.
The Defendant: I object. Michael Parsons is not present. I am Ambassador Michael Parsons of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. I am not the defendant. (Doc 193, pg 4)
And then Michael Parsons complains about defense attorney Schense. Much later on, Schense notes all that he has done to assist the defendant.
The Court: Just a minute. So are you wishing to proceed pro se? I mean, are you wishing to proceed on your own?
The Defendant: I’m not pro se. I’m a live man. I’m not representing a corporate fiction here today. I am — I am a live man. I’m not here to engage in commerce with this — I’m not sure if it’s a court or administrative tribunal…(Doc 193, pg 5)
Michael Parsons proceeds to argue, employing commonly held “sovereign citizen” legal reasonings. The Court asks the Defendant a series of questions, which Parson replies, but not with an answer to the actual question posed by the Judge. Thus the Court rules that Mike Parsons will not be allowed to represent himself, but is assigned Attorney Schense, as full counsel.
The Court: … I want to be real clear on my ruling here. I’ve found your conduct throughout the proceedings but particularly today to be obstructionist. It has directly interfered with my ability to determine whether you can provide a knowing and voluntary waiver of your right to counsel. I have no evidence to — to base that on and I’m so finding. You’ve been obstructionist and I am going –(Doc 193, pg. 19)
The Defendant: I object to that determination. There’s no basis for that. Because I don’t know the rules of the court because Your Honor will not disclose the form, it’s not obstructionist. I have a right to know, Your Honor. The Supreme Court has said so. In Bonds [sic] v. United States Bonds was clearly — the Supreme Court overturned the ruling because she had a right to know the form of court, and Your Honor’s not telling me the form of court so I don’t know what rules you’re going by. (Doc 193, pg 20)
The Court: That was the first sentence that came out of my mouth, sir. All right. Now here’s–here are the rules that we’re going to follow during the trial, and there is going to be a trial that’s commencing today, and it will be conducted in regular order. Everyone, the government, you, or anybody else, any other litigant must follow the rules, A, as a matter of law and, B, as a matter of common court decorum and if you do so, you’ll be allowed to participate fully in this trial. In fact, I encourage you to do so.
It’s a court that’s — this court’s every desire to have you participant fully in the trial just as I allow any other pro se participant or somebody that’s represented to — to participate in the trial. But if you do not follow the rules, if you become disruptive, if you continue to be interruptive, we’re going to — we’re not going to have an argument in front of the jury, we’re not going to have a public display. I will simply stop the proceedings, I’ll excuse the jury for a brief period of time, and then I will remove you from the courtroom if the obstructionist behavior continues. If, on the other hand, you’re going to participate in this trial, follow the rules, you will be allowed to participate throughout the trial. whether you wish to come back in, follow the rules of court and — and not be obstructionist.
The Defendant: So may I — may I get this straight? Because I cannot answer questions without knowing the rules, that is the determination of — your definition of obstruction, because I’m not able to answer your questions?
The Court: If you are — if you become disruptive during the proceedings and the — and the trial does not — is not allowed to proceed in an orderly fashion, I’ll make that determination. All right? Okay? So if I — and I will give you every opportunity, A, to not be disruptive and, B, to follow the rules. I’m going to give you every single opportunity that you can have. But if you choose to violate that and continue to be disruptive, I’ll have you removed from the — from the courtroom and you can view the trial from another venue.
The Defendant: But for the — but for the record for purposes of appeal, the basis by which you are declaring me to be an obstructionist is because I do not answer your questions pertaining to a birth date, my educational level and these questions before the Court today. Is that what you’re basing your —
The Court: Every single question I asked you, you didn’t answer one of them. Yes, and that’s what I’m basing my ruling on as far as you being obstructionist. (Doc.193, pg. 22)
Obstructionist Parsons Changes His Mind Too Late: Do-overs Not Allowed in this Court
Mr. Schense: (Doc 193, pg. 39) Yes, Judge, thank you. Mr. Parsons has asked me to request of the Court another opportunity for the Court to pose the questions that it asked Mr. Parsons early this morning in terms of his age, his date of — or his date of birth, his educational level and his desires. He has asked me to have — ask the Court to reconsider its ruling to allow Mr. Parsons to represent himself in this matter. So on behalf of Mr. Parsons, I’m making that request of the Court.
I believe Mr. Parsons would like you to pose the same 5 questions. I suspect he may give you different answers.
The Court: All right. Well, we don’t get do-overs in — in this court. I am — you know, I was concerned obviously about the obstructionist behavior this morning, and you can’t just say, oops, I want a do-over at — at this point in time. But I’m also concerned, Mr. Parsons, with your view of the law and this Court’s authority. You’re entitled to that view but that will not serve you well acting as your own counsel.
The government does have an interest in ensuring the integrity and the efficiency of a trial and — and at times, and this is one of those times, that outweighs your interest in — in acting as your — your own lawyer. Just a moment. Self-representation is not — is not something that can be utilized for disruptions, for distortion of the system or for manipulation of the — of the trial process and that is everything that I heard this morning. And it’s not just been this morning, but it’s been throughout the process.
So I will, number one, deny your right to self-representation. Mr. Schense is a very experienced, competent lawyer. He’s demonstrated that this morning. He’s demonstrated that in the preparation for trial. (Doc 193, pg 40)
I’m a Judge too!
The Defendant: (Doc 193, pg 43) Yes, sir. My — my objection was not to those instructions. It’s to before they retire to deliberate, those instructions would be the ones that if they’re not certain to the degree that they’re supposed to determine these facts, they may not even know the component of interference with interstate commerce, what that even means because Mr. Schense doesn’t understand these points of law. I — I’ve actually been a judge for the Universal Supreme Court now going on two years. I do have cases myself and am aware of these — these laws of this country.
The Court: All right. Well, the jurisdiction in this courtroom is — is the federal statutes and the United States Constitution. But we will talk about and argue about and discuss jury instructions before they are given…
I want the right to cross-examine certain witnesses (although I am not pro se)
The Defendant: And one last point. I would ask that I also be allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses. There are key points of information that need to be brought to the Court and the jury’s attention that Mr. Schense would not be aware of because he has not apprised himself of all these facts.
The Court: Well, then I would suggest that you and Mr. Schense get together over the course of the next one hour and 15 minutes and this evening because Mr. Schense will be the one that will do direct examination and cross-examination. You will not be allowed to do so…(Doc 193, pg. 44)
The witnesses are sworn in and questioned by both the prosecution and the defense.
No tail identification on Michael Parsons’ airplane! I wonder who erased that?
Weverka-Direct-(Sharp) (Doc 193, pg 91)
Sharp: Was there anything unusual about that plane that you noted at that time?
Weverka: Not exactly at that time, but when we went to put fuel in it, one of the things — or part of the information that needs to be entered into the terminal was a tail number.
Sharp: Okay, And what is it you noticed?
Weverka: It had no tail number.
Day Two: Collateral Attacks, Offers of Proof of Sovereign Citizen Counterfeit Court Proceedings
On Day 2, more witnesses are examined and cross-examined, and Mike Parsons allows his court appointed full counsel to represent his interests. Defense attorney Schense presents Offers of Proof involving documents prepared by those British Columbia sovereign citizens who have unilaterally established a fake court and “legal” documents.
Document 195, page 160 shows the following comments.
|Mr. Sharp: I do object, Your Honor, on relevance grounds.
The Court: All right, very well. As the Court has noted earlier, diplomatic status cannot be unilaterally established. There has to be some recognition by the Department of State. That’s the United States vs. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 — it’s a 1984 case — as well as Mazengo vs. Mzengi, 542 F. Supp. 2d 96. There are other cases along those lines, but any testimony with respect to Mr. Parsons being appointed as an ambassador or being a diplomat or not being subject to laws of the United States is not relevant.
The offer of proof — or the objection to the offer of proof is sustained. You may go to the next offer of proof.