I was reading court records and came across a fascinating case taking shape–the case of Ken Cromar -sovereign citizen/tax protestor.
The records indicate that the government is arguing for the court to exclude irrelevant and inadmissible defense witness testimony. They noted that during his 2022 trial in Utah, for which he was convicted of burglary, and wrongful appropriation for breaking into and reoccupying his former residence after it had been seized and sold at auction by the IRS, the “defendant [engaged in] many serious, prejudicial misperceptions about what is relevant and admissible in a criminal trial.”
They are concerned he will expose the jury to “irrelevant and prejudicial evidence” by calling witnesses that will testify about all sorts of unrelated, inadmissible topics, including their antigovernment views and their disenchantment with court officials. They believe this because that is exactly what he did in a previous trial, which they detail. Below are the people he called and a summary of what was said during testimony from court records.
Ryan Bundy
· Defendant tried to elicit information about the Malheur occupation and the death of
one of the occupiers, LaVoy Finicum. Defendant asked Bundy to testify about
whether Bundy had any “unique experiences with [Malheur Occupation
codefendant] Shawna Cox” that was “of national relevance.” When the questions
were objected to, Defendant’s proffer as to relevance was that he was attempting to
elicit that Bundy and Shawna Cox were present when a federal-state taskforce fatally
shot Finicum.3Link to the text of the note
· Defendant tried to elicit information about the unsuccessful prosecution of Bundy for
the Bunkerville standoff, asking Bundy: “Have you had any extended time dealing
with law enforcement?…What are you known for, Mr. Bundy?” Bundy responded by
beginning to describe the Bunkerville standoff until he was cut off by the court
sustaining the state’s objection.4Link to the text of the note
· Defendant asked Bundy: “Why do you think it’s important to stand up with[] people
who are standing for their rights against a tyrannical government?”5Link to the text of the note
· Again attempting to elicit testimony about the Bunkerville prosecution, Defendant
asked Bundy: “Have you ever been imprisoned?…Oh, have you ever been jailed?…
How long were you detained?” Bundy responded, “700 days,” which was a reference
to his pretrial detention in the Bunkerville prosecution. Bundy then went on to
discuss his pretrial detention in relation to the Bunkerville prosecution and time
spent in solitary confinement.6Link to the text of the note
· Defendant asked Bundy about his reason for testifying by video and Bundy
responded: “I have concern for my own liberty because I can’t trust the courts and
the law enforcement to maintain that I can come and go in freedom.”7Link to the text of the note Other parts of
the trial’s audio reflect that Bundy possibly had an active warrant arising from a
misdemeanor charge related to a horse purchase.
· In response to Defendant’s question as to why Bundy was willing to come to
Defendant’s former residence to “stand with the Cromars,” Bundy stated: “Just like
our founding fathers, they had to put their foot down at some point and say we’ve
got to stand up for our liberties regardless of the consequences and that’s what our
whole country is founded upon”8Link to the text of the note
· Defendant asked Bundy whether he has taken an oath to the Constitution and why
he might do so. Bundy answered by discussing his views about the structure of
constitutional government and the principles of liberty. Defendant followed up by
asking Bundy why there was a revolution that created the Constitution.9Link to the text of the note
· In response to a cross-examination question from the prosecutor, Bundy invoked his
“personal experience” in stating that he’s aware federal courts often “get it wrong,”
which was an apparent reference to the unsuccessful prosecutions of him for the
Bunkerville standoff and Malheur occupation.10Link to the text of the note
· On re-direct, Defendant asked Bundy: “Have you in your own experience found that
judges get it right?”11Link to the text of the note
· Defendant then again asked Bundy, “Have you ever been a victim of government
overreach by the courts?”12Link to the text of the note
· During a second re-direct, Defendant asked Bundy to opine about constitutional law,
including warrants, the Fourth Amendment, treason, and other laws. He also asked
Bundy whether he is “concerned” about the jury being caused to do something
improper.
· During a third re-direct, Defendant asked Bundy about the Supreme Court case
Marbury v. Madison.
Shawna Cox
o Defendant asked Cox questions about oaths, the Fourth Amendment, and her
interaction with police and asking them about their oaths.
o Defendant asked Cox this hypothetical question: “if there’s a violation of the
constitution, what does that do to any warrant or order, etc.” After an
objection was sustained to that question, Defendant asked Cox a question
about Marbury v. Madison.17Link to the text of the note
o Defendant asked Cox about the Fourth Amendment, asked her to read the
Fourth Amendment into the record, and asked her to opine on why the
Fourth Amendment is an important part of the Constitution.18Link to the text of the note
o Defendant asked Cox, “Do you consider yourself an expert on the
Constitution?”19Link to the text of the note
o Defendant asked Cox her opinion on the importance of an oath of office.20Link to the text of the note
o Defendant again tried to have Cox testify about the Malheur Occupation by
asking if she has been harmed by the government or seen violations of the
oath of office.
o During re-direct, the Defendant asked Cox about constitutional and other
legal principles, such as judicial review and separation of powers.21Link to the text of the note
o Defendant asked Cox about her knowledge regarding legal orders and
appellate proceedings in cases pertaining to Defendant’s delinquent taxes and
foreclosure on his former residence. He further asked about her general
understanding of stays pending appeal. After another objection, Defendant
asked Cox, “Who is the Constitution for?; “Is the Constitution there to keep
government in check?…How?”22Link to the text of the note
o Defendant asked Cox about whether the “oath of office addresses the issue of
enemies foreign and domestic?…What does it mean?” He further asked Cox
what she “would consider an example of a domestic enemy?…Why would
that be important at all?”23Link to the text of the note
o In another attempt to elicit testimony about Cox’s experience with the Malheur occupation, Defendant asked whether she has personal experience with or first-hand knowledge of “a judge making an unlawful order that was then overturned.”24Link to the text of the no teo Defendant then asked Cox about her familiarity with the term “double jeopardy” and asked her what it means.
Wendy Latham (campaign manager for Ammon Bundy’s unsuccessful campaign for Idaho governor)
At the beginning of Defendant’s direct examination, after being prompted, Latham
started testifying regarding her “deep concern about what’s happening in our nation”
and “what’s happening with peoples’ rights[.]”
· Defendant asked Latham: “What does the term unalienable [pronounced `un-a-lien-
able’] mean to you?” Latham opined: that property “can’t have a lien placed on it,
it’s yours,” and offered her opinion that “God” gives such a right. Defendant
followed up by asking, “Is that important to you?” Latham responded affirmatively,
opining: “Because what God gives is what belongs to us, and no man should take
that from us.”
· In an effort to cause Latham to talk about the Meridian, Idaho hospital arrest or the
Bundys’ other cases, Defendant asked her about her association with the Bundy
family and how she knows them. He followed up by asking her whether she has
“ever had any court experience” with the Bundys.
· Defendant asked Latham if she has taken an oath and asked her to opine about the
importance of the oath and its longevity.
· Defendant asked Latham “What does the term `enemies foreign and domestic’ mean
to you?” Latham responded and described domestic enemies as “enemies within
who want to take away individual rights and control us[.]”
· Defendant asked Latham her opinion about “government oath takers actually
protecting the rights of each individual,” which led to Latham discussing her notion
of freedom.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor engaged in a long colloquy with Latham about her views and opinions on hypotheticals about individual rights, due process, rule of law, and the finality of law. Latham discussed the definition of caselaw and made misinformed statements about the right to jury trial.
On re-direct, Defendant attempted to have Latham testify about the following topics:
o Defendant asked Latham about her trespassing arrest involving the Bundys
and about weapons supposedly being leveled against her.
o Latham testified about her experience acting as “a courtwatcher” who would
come to court proceedings for cases in which she was not a party and
document the proceedings. This led Defendant to state, “We would have
loved to have you here [in Defendant’s trial].”
o Defendant asked Latham about what she saw and learned during her
experience as a “courtwatcher.” Latham opined about “the system”
consisting of an alliance between the judge and the prosecution since they are
both paid by the government and “they tend to support one another.” She
then offered an anecdote, which was a thinly-veiled description of the U.S. v.
Bundy, et al. prosecution for the Bunkerville standoff and the dismissal of
charges in that case due to a discovery issue. Without naming the case, she
related that “the prosecution could do no wrong” and “no objection was ever
sustained against them[.]” But “one day, a document that had been hidden
from the defense was made public…” Her anecdote was then cut off by a
sustained objection.
o Defendant then asked Latham her conclusions about the court system “based
on her seven months of court watching[.]” She opined: “[T]he deck is stacked
against the people. The prosecution, the, you know, the attorneys, all of `em,
the judge, everybody, they all work for the same entity, and they do not
defend peoples’ rights[.]”
o Defendant again asked Latham to testify about “enemies foreign and
domestic” and asked her: “What would be a domestic enemy[?]” She opined
that it would include “corrupt government officials[.]”
William D’Angelo (Bill), Cromar’s neighbor who lived across the street who was a major supporter and who attempted to obstruct sale of residence
Defendant asked Bill, “What does the term `enemies foreign and domestic’ mean to
you?”
· Defendant asked Bill, “Have you ever encountered domestic enemies with regard to
your rights?”
· Defendant asked Bill, “What do you believe should happen if a domestic enemy has
taken an oath?” Bill opined about Constitutional principles and people not
understanding the rights they’ve lost.
Bill’s wife, Danielle D’Angelo (Danielle)
· Defendant asked Danielle whether she has ever taken an “oath of allegiance to the
constitution” and why the constitution is important to her. She responded that it
gives her rights and protects her from “tyranny.” Defendant asked her to clarify
“what tyranny” she was speaking about.
· Defendant asked Danielle if she was familiar with the phrase “enemies foreign and
domestic” and what the term “domestic enemy” meant to her. Danielle opined about
how she believed her government was currently trying to take away her “god given
rights.” Defendant asked her, “Where do you think that could take our nation?”
· Defendant next asked Danielle, “How do you know when your rights are being
compromised?” Among other things, Danielle testified about rights being violated
and opined that “our government is actively trying to prevent me from carrying
protection, to protect my family, if I’m violated by those who are breaking the law.”
· Defendant next asked Danielle, “Have you ever felt attacked or compromised in
your rights politically?”
· Seeking to elicit information about the D’Angelos’ own income taxes, Defendant
asked Danielle, “Have you ever had an encounter with the IRS?” Danielle said “yes”
but an objection was sustained before she could describe her interaction with the
IRS.
· Defendant elicited testimony from Danielle that she and Bill decided to leave Utah
for Texas because they would have more rights in Texas. Danielle also testified about
receiving a letter from the city in Utah where she previously resided which
threatened to arrest her.
· Defendant sought to have Danielle testify about “a letter” from the IRS which stated
that Defendant did not owe taxes. This precipitated a long session outside the
presence of the jury during which it became clear that Defendant was attempting to
have Danielle testify about a 2021 U.S. Tax Court order dismissing a petition that
Defendant had filed.
Among other concerns, the state worries that these witnesses are attempting to “delegitimize courts of law and government institutions and, as such, invite the jury to nullify and refuse to apply the law in Defendant’s case.”
In other records, they note the defendant routinely does not listen to the court and seeks to tell the jury untrue statements even when it has been stipulated by all parties that what he is telling the jury is not true. He seems to purposely try to confuse them, which has worked in the past and has led to mistrials.
The government is right to be concerned and is taking proper precautions with someone they note has a history of lawless behavior.
One final interesting notation was this regarding the Cromars home: