here with the Secretary of State. I provided you yesterday as a courtesy with a copy of my Oaths of auspice. My name is on that as well. They were not saying you are attempting to disrupt with asking questions like this. I am now. I realize it may very well be related to your uh claim to be a sovereign Citizen and citing the claim to be silent. That's correct jurisdiction of this court. But these are not questions. This court is obligated and say that I am sorry. All right. You believe you're Sovereign. The record is corrected. So um Mr. Brooks, we're getting really close for you crossing the line, really close to the crossings from the courtroom for continued interruptions. I want you here Mr. Brooks. You haven't let me get in one sentence this morning and it is only when it's 8:57 um so um. I want you to be here my certainly my preference for is for you to be here to participate fully but you do not have the right to disrupt the proper Administration. I demand dignity.

order and decorum. You have been provided with the copy of SCR Chapter 62 that lists the responsibilities that myself, the attorneys in this courtroom, the litigants, it even applies, as you can see if you read, it applies to witnesses, jurors, those in attendance. Everyone here has been respectful other than you throughout these proceedings. Object to that respectfully. I have not been disruptive, and I do not see any paperwork that you just described to be interested. I'm going to continue with a fire. Garden, that conduct will not be tolerated. You stating things, even in a mild manner, tone of voice, doesn't change the fact that we've had a dozen or more interruptions by you and by you alone when you don't like the answer I give, even if that's a non-response. You continue to ask the same question over and over. You repeat yourself. You show absolutely no respect for the court, for these proceedings. You have demonstrated in the short, not even 30 minutes that we've been on the record, that you will

continue to disrupt. I am going to have the jurors brought in. Um, again, it is my sincere hope that you follow these simple and basic rules. But the next interruption, you will be removed to the next courtroom. I do not consent to any paperwork that is not based factually in law. I don't give my consent. We have the jurors here, and I do not. I will not agree to anything not yet. Okay, so again [Music] since you will not answer the question that I've merely asked of your honor numerous times at this point. Can that Title reign please direct the prosecutor to answer whether there are any more charges? Can the title man please direct the prosecutor to answer whether their assessment for the charges Mr. Brooks? No one's going to be answering these questions. Okay, I'm not requiring an estate to do that. I'm advising you to stop asking those questions. It will be considered he's interrupted into the next courtroom. I'll make more findings when he is in the courtroom. Uh, next door.

and I can stop doing that without an interruption or agree to unstop when I will move the court again. Currently, you are not muted. All right, Mr. Brooks. All right, you can mute him. All right, Mr. Brooks, you have been muted so that I can make some appropriate findings here this morning. Um, I understand that you um object. Your objection is noted. Your lack of consent is noted. As I indicated earlier, I lost track after about a dozen or so interruptions by Mr. Brooks. Um, he continues to ask questions that I told him I would not answer. And even though I made a decision not to answer questions, he keeps asking those. From my perspective, they are questions that any Sovereign or Sovereign citizen tends to ask regarding my name, my oath, jurisdiction, things of that nature. This court, of course, has Authority from the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, the statutes. I've been duly elected twice now by the citizens of Waukesha County to preside over criminal and other cases in the courts of Waukesha.

County, I fully am aware that Mr. Brooks, as a Sovereign, disputes the validity of that, but from my perspective, they are not issues that need to be debated. Um, he raises these issues, uh, really just by simple statements. He has never filed an appropriate motion. Motions are governed by state law. Written motions require that the specific relief be requested, that the motion be based on law and fact. I've never gotten anything even close to that from Mr. Brooks. Even if I were to accept an oral motion, which can be proper at times, he has failed to follow the simplest of procedural requirements. He continues to be in the other courtroom. You can see on the monitor he's standing, he's facing the other direction, he's yelling what I can't hear him, but it appears that he is yelling. I muted him because of his interruptions of the court, and I understand he objects. His objection is again once is noted. Um, and because of the disruptions and based upon the authority in Illinois versus Allen, I also referenced yesterday.

a persuasive case. Um, it's not at my fingertips. I'll get that for the record. It's the Pennsylvania case that I found to be of persuasive value where a similar procedure was done. Frankly, what we are providing here in Waukesha County through the use of the technology we have in the courtroom is far superior to what was done in that Pennsylvania case. I have the ability to mute, to unmute. I can see him. He can see the four cameras in this courtroom right now. That would be me. It would be the table where I would like him to be seated that is empty, the prosecution table, and then the witness stand. I am cognizant that the one limitation is the cameras do not pick up the jurors when they sit. There may be, depending on the angle on the witness stand, a few jurors that would get captured, but of course, he cannot see those. He's able to hear them, of course. I will instruct the bailiffs over there to give him a pad of paper if he doesn't have.

one already. I know he had some documents and some things in front of him. At one point, I saw him sort of do a sweeping motion, and things seemed to go flying. I'll get some verification of that from the bailiffs who are over there, through the bailiff that is in my courtroom. But he will at least be given a notepad, a writing utensil. He is advised that should he want to raise a strike for cause of any juror, my procedure is to address that at the end. Certainly, if something comes up before that and he wishes to do that under the law, he can simply write on the pad of paper he has cause, hold it up, and I'll make a determination if I should excuse the jury and then take up that decision. I'm probably not going to do that with frequency. He would need to further not only do that but write on a piece of paper the juror number, the basis for that request before I would require the jurors to be excused to take it up. But that's the

procedure that this court will follow, just like I did yesterday. After I get through all of the questions, I will ask the parties if there is a request for any individual questioning of jurors, meaning outside the presence of other jurors. I would need to know again what your number, what question they need to be questioned about, whether that be a numbered question from the questionnaire or a question that was asked in court. Parties will also be given an opportunity to ask appropriate follow-up questions. Once that opportunity is concluded, I then have a few concluding questions, and then ultimately we'll excuse the jurors to take up the issue of strikes for cause. I've been advised that Mr. Brooks did throw some items on the floor, but he does have his paperwork and a pen. Go ahead. I just want to make sure that we put on the record that it has been verified that Mr. Brooks can hear this court. Also, that I believe I had heard that the juror questionnaires for the next

um set of jurors coming in have been provided to Mr. Brooks. Thank you for that reminder. He has been provided with two additional binders. He probably doesn't even have the first one anymore because the first binder only went to juror number 41. He does. He still has it. Okay, so he has that binder. He has two additional binders, which are separated, I believe, it's 42 to 70 and then 71 to 100 something. But it is the balance of the jurors who had been instructed to come on day one. This is the jurors who were not questioned yesterday. It's not even all of them who will be coming in because of the physical limitations in this courtroom. We'll bring in 41. So he has been provided with those binders. Were we able to verify? We were able to verify the audio is working, the video is working, just like we can see him. He can see us. For those of you who are in the courtroom, what he would be seeing on the monitors will be that four square as well because it is through the zoom.

he would have his picture as well, so he would see the Double Image, if you will. I should also make a record that there are a number of individuals on my Zoom as well. There was a request by the state to allow victims under the statute and Constitution to be present by Zoom for jury selection due to the court not streaming jury selection. I believe I also have attorney Anna Keys also watching as well, along with at least one Vic. Actually, I think I see two victim witness workers. So, I have a lot of screens up here, a lot of boxes on my screen. So, um, I believe the state has complied with victim rights. Uh, would you please confirm that we have? Did I, uh, overlook anything you asked me to cover? Um, yeah, the only other thing, and I think the court somewhat made a record by your findings, but I know that the defendant made two motions to dismiss um for judicial misconduct. Again, I'd ask the court to summarily deny those motions based upon lack of merit, and he

didn't provide support for either one for either motion. I believe he did raise a motion to dismiss based on judicial misconduct. I think he also threw in there another request to stay the proceedings or file an interlocutory appeal. While that's really not something I would need to address because nothing's been filed as it relates to a request for an appeal, I will deny that summarily. There's been no basis in law or fact provided. I'll also deny the motion to dismiss based on judicial conduct based upon there being no showing in law or fact. All right, anything else then before the jurors are brought in? Oh yeah, thank you. I will, just like I did yesterday, advise the jurors that Mr. Brooks is appearing from a remote location and that that should not influence their verdict in any way. [Applause] It appears to me that Mr. Brooks continues to stand, make hand gestures, and talk. I will again just advise him should he desire to raise any issues with the court. He is

advised to write that down on paper. The bailiffs are instructed to promptly provide that either to the court staff that's in there or another bailiff, and that will be provided to me forthwith so that I can raise any issues of merit. All right with that then we will begin the jury selection process, and so we can go ahead and bring them in.

Frustrated Judge Ejects Darrell Brooks from Courtroom So She Can Mute Him

스크립트