I can't let my constitutional rights be violated, so um I am on the record my status is a Moorish American national. I am not a black person. I am not a United States citizen, so that's why I claim my nationality as a Moorish American. >> You don't have to be a United States citizen to be charged with a crime in the United States. I don't know if I were you, I wouldn't go around here in open court live stream declaring that I'm not a United States citizen facing criminal action. The city of Lansing uh versus Aaron Skates 25-01554 appearance, please. Elizabeth Fromholz on behalf of the city of Lansing. And Mr. Skates present uh today. And I understand today's the day scheduled for jury trial, correct? Excuse me? >> No. No, I didn't >> You requested a jury trial. Are you no longer requesting a jury trial? >> Yes, but I didn't know it was for today. >> It is for today. Okay. Do you have any questions at this time? >> Um No, I just wish to remain silent. I'm just telling the court that I'm a Moorish American national. >> Okay, sounds good. Do you know that if you were visiting London and you committed a crime, they have jurisdiction over you just as well as this court has jurisdiction over the over you for the alleged crime, correct? >> For the alleged crime? >> Correct. Okay. And you still elect to represent yourself today, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. We're going to put you down back at the jail until the time that the jury appears and then we'll uh proceed with jury uh selection, okay? Thank you. Now back on the record in the matter of the city of Lansing versus Aaron Skates. This is 25-01554. Counsel, can I have your appearance, please? Elizabeth Fromholz on behalf of the city of Lansing. Okay. And then you're Aaron Joseph Skates, correct? >> Record my name uh uh my name is already changed for Aaron Joseph Bay. Uh that's the >> You had a legal name change, you're saying? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. At the time of this election incident, was your name legally changed? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> They had the passport, the IDs, and all that. >> Okay. So, your former name was Aaron Skates, but your legal name now is Bay. >> Bay. >> Okay. So, we'll we'll note that here. Uh Aaron Joseph Skates, formerly Aaron Joseph Skates, okay? Uh currently Aaron Joseph Bay. >> Joseph. >> Joseph Okay. Joseph Bay. Okay. Uh and when you address the court, you can stand. Okay. And so, uh prior to us bringing up the jury, I do need to address some issues. Um first and foremost, there was a brief in support of the city's uh motion. They made a motion in limine. Uh and that was a motion to eliminate uh certain facts. Uh and so, uh it concerned Um or their request ultimately is for there to be uh anything that would cause uh confusion for jury to be eliminated. So, it says any argument related to the strawman theory or legal trust should be excluded from trial as they have no legal relevance and will cause jury confusion. It says the plaintiff anticipates uh that the defendant uh will attempt to present an alternative theory that forming a trust puts him above the law. This argument has no basis in law and is irrelevant under Michigan court rule of evidence 402. It's clear in stating that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Forming a trust does not make a person above the law, nor should it. Even if the court deemed the potential evidence to be irrelevant under Michigan uh rule of evidence 403 uh allow allows a court to exclude uh relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger uh of confusing issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time. This court is solely responsible for instructing the jury as to what law applies and how it applies. Allowing the jury to view or the defendant that is this view unfounded and misrepresented misinterpreted law will confuse the issue, mislead the jury, cause undue delay, and waste time all while prejudicing uh the plaintiff or the people in this case at trial. This is any contract theory or uniform commercial code arguments are also not relevant to criminal matters and should be deemed inappropriate and inadmissible due to the documents that the defendant has provided the plaintiff. There is reason to believe the defendant will attempt to assert legal principles based in contract law or uniform commercial code. Neither of which have any application to this criminal trial. Contract law does not apply as there has never uh >> [clears throat] >> as there was never a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff nor any offer to enter into one. Similarly, the uniform uniform commercial code is irrelevant to this matter as it does not involve a commercial transaction or any sort. This is a criminal matter and only criminal law procedures and rules should apply. If the defendant is allowed to make his claim, it will further confuse the jury at in this case and cause undue delay. Uh so, that is the uh file and the brief or the motion and the brief that was filed by the uh prosecutor in this matter. Again, the city attorney's office. Uh they filed this back in September, September 18, 2025. I reviewed the file and did not see a response from you. >> Um I did uh uh I filed a uh Before that I had a tort claim >> I'm sorry. >> I had a tort claim uh leaning against the uh corporation these companies. >> What companies? >> Uh the city of Lansing and the state of Michigan. >> You filed a tort claim against them and what's the case number for that? >> Uh well I don't have the documents in >> Okay, that's if you filed any if you filed any civil tort action against them that would be separate from this criminal matter. So what does that have to do with your response to their motion in limine? >> The criminal matter um I need to see proof of there being a crime that I committed >> Well that's why we're here today is for the for them to determine whether or not they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime that was committed. Okay, so as to their motion, I find their motion to be well supported and founded in the law which this is a criminal matter and only the rules of a criminal procedure apply here and the rules of evidence apply here as it relates to criminal cases. In the court, I am the one responsible for gatekeeping what information is as it relates to the law goes to the jury so that we don't cause undue delay. I don't think you want to be here for longer than you need to be and neither does any of the jury members. It kind of frustrates them when they're here for things that they don't that that longer than they need to be. The other thing is we need to prevent them from having confusion. I have recognized there's been some unorthodox arguments that you have made um both in this case on the record and then also in your filings. Um you filed a common law copyright notice and notice of claim against public bond, a private ministerial trust declaration was filed. Uh there was some addendum of commercial lien agreement that was filed and then some notary documents. And so those things have been placed in the file. I don't know for what purpose they were filed with this court. Again, this is not a civil matter. This is not a matter involving involving any trust. And so this is a criminal matter. You've made statements on the record about whether or not you believe the court or this entity to have jurisdiction. The court has already been determined to have jurisdiction over this matter. Which is why it's being heard in this district court. So those arguments are now moot. We've already addressed those. And so as it relates to any statements of law to a jury regarding the straw man theory or the universal commercial code. The universal commercial code does not apply to this. This is not a uh a transaction that would involve a universal commercial code. So that would be prohibited as well as any contract law theory. This is not a contract law case. This is strictly a criminal case. It's strictly civil. I'm sorry, strictly a criminal ordinance matter case. So the law that is alleged or the law that are alleged to have been violated are both first that you furnished false information to the police and then also that you obstructed official business. The court is using the criminal jury instruction rule for those alleged crimes. Those are the laws that will be provided to the jury for their consideration. But again, it is the burden squarely upon the prosecutor, which is the city, to prove that you did those things. They must prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So the court is granting the motion for motion in limine. When the jury is brought up, we don't typically require or >> [clears throat] >> defendants in custody to be to be cuffed. However, you have a nature in this court that does cause the court some concerns with uncuffing you. I am going to allow you to be uncuffed. What is your dominant writing hand? >> Left. >> Left hand. We will uncuff you so that you can write and take notes. Do you have paper and pen for that purpose? >> I do not. >> We will make sure you have those things so that you can take notes and that you can have your hand available for that. I will not be completely uncuffing you because my complete and utter recollection of a not too long ago you were in the court across the hall and created a disruption and caused some some harm, physical harm to some people. So, I would need to keep you cuffed for the safety and security of those in this courtroom. We are in very close proximity. Do you understand that? Do you understand that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you have any questions at this time? >> Uh no question [clears throat] at all. >> Okay. We'll have you you have your seat for now. We're going to bring the jury up and then we will begin with a jury selection. Um during the jury selection, you will have an opportunity to ask the jury of some questions. However, I have to again gate keep what's appropriate and what's not appropriate. But what you're doing during this selection process is trying to see which jurors you would feel comfortable making a decision about whether or not you're guilty or not, okay? So, you have the right to ask them some questions within reason, okay? So, start to think about that if you haven't already and we're having them brought up now, okay? Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Judge Kristen Simmons. It is my pleasure and my privilege to welcome you to the 54A District Court here in Ingham County. I know jury duty may be a new experience for some of you. Jury duty is one of the most serious duties that members of a free society are asked to perform. Our system of self-government could not exist without it. The jury is an important part of this court. The right to a jury trial is an ancient tradition and part of our heritage. The law says that both a person who is accused of a crime and the prosecution have a right to a trial not by one person, but by a jury of six impartial persons. Jurors must be as free as humanly possible from bias, prejudice, or sympathy for either side. Each side in a trial is entitled to jurors that keep an open mind until the time comes to decide the case. A trial will begin with jury selection. The purpose of this process is to obtain information about you that will help us choose a fair and impartial jury to hear this case. During jury selection, the lawyers and I and the defendant in this case, because he's not representing himself, uh uh will ask you questions. This is called voir dire. The questions are meant to find out if you know anything about the case. Also, we need to find out if you have any opinions or personal experiences that might influence you for or against the prosecution, defendant, or any witnesses. One or more of these things could cause you to be excused in this particular case, even though you may otherwise be qualified as a juror. The questions may probe deeply into your attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. They are not meant to be an unreasonable prying into your life. The law requires that we get this information so that an impartial jury can be chosen. If you do not hear or understand a question, you should say so. If you do understand it, you should answer it truthfully and completely. Please do not hesitate to speak freely about anything you believe we should know. During jury selection, you may be excused from serving on a jury in one of two ways. First, I may excuse you for cause. That is, I may decide that there is a valid reason why you cannot or should not serve in this case. Or a lawyer from one side or the other may excuse you without giving any reason for doing so. This is called a peremptory challenge. The law gives each side the right to excuse a certain number of jurors in this way. If you are excused, you should not feel bad or take it personally. As I explained before, there simply may be something that causes you to be excused from this particular case. I will now ask you to stand and swear to answer truthfully, fully, and honestly all the questions that you will be asked about your qualifications to serve as a juror in this case. If you have religious beliefs against taking an oath, you may instead affirm that you will answer all the questions truthfully, fully, and honestly. All of the jurors, please stand. If you're able to do so, that is. Raise your right hand. Uh do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will truthfully and completely answer all questions about your qualifications to serve as jurors in this case? If you do, signify by saying I do. Thank you. You can be seated. Uh let me now introduce members of my staff. To my right, I have Addie Nash. That is my court recorder and judicial assistant. Over to my left, the gentleman that escorted you up, that's Mr. David Wornsley. He's the court officer. Uh this is a criminal case involving the charges of hinder, obstruct, resist an officer, and furnishing false information, which we will explain more fully later. This charge has been made uh against a defendant whose name is formally Mr. Aaron Skates. Uh the defendant has elected to represent himself. Uh Mr. uh Aaron Bay is now his name. Can you please stand and list any witnesses that you anticipate calling? You don't anticipate calling any witnesses? Okay, thank you. Um and then the prosecuting attorneys for the this from the city attorney's office is Mr. Elizabeth Maloney and Mr. Patrick Abu. Uh counsel, if you can list any witnesses you anticipate calling. >> Yes, Your Honor. The city anticipates calling officers Tyrese McClinton and officer Mark Fox. >> Thank you. All right, does anyone in the jury box or anyone waiting to be chosen to go to the jury box, do you recognize the defendant or know him personally? Okay, does anyone know the lawyers that just were were just introduced? Does anyone know these officers that were just named? >> [clears throat] >> Uh this trial should be completed today. If you believe the length of trial will be a real hardship for you, uh please raise your hand. Some of you may have health problem problems that would prevent you from serving on the jury. For example, does anyone have a medical problem that makes you unable to sit for two or three hours at a time or does anyone have a sight or hearing problem? If you do, please raise your hand. >> [snorts] >> You have an issue? Okay, so you can't sit for long periods of time? Okay, you've not yet made it there, so it's not really an issue yet, but if we get there, then we'll address it, okay? And just for the record, we do not sit for two or three hours at a time, we do take breaks at the top of the hour or whenever it's feasible based on where they're questioning. Does anybody have a sight problem? It's a small courtroom, can everyone see us clearly? Raise your hand if you can hear me. Very good. Again, this is a criminal case. The paper used to charge a defendant with a crime is called a complaint. The complaint in this case charges the defendant, Mr. Aaron Skates, as follows: On or about May 22nd, 2025, that the defendant did allegedly commit the act in count one of hinder, oppose, obstruct, or resist a Lansing police officer in the performance of law enforcement duties at or near West Edgewood and South Washington Ave, Lansing, Michigan, contrary to the code of Lansing. And that in count two, did allegedly knowingly furnish a Lansing police officer with false information, that being an incorrect name, at or near the vicinity of West Edgewood, South Washington Ave, Lansing, Michigan, during the officer's investigation of the violation of state or local law or ordinance. And this was contrary to the provisions of the code of Lansing ordinances. The defendant has pled not guilty to the charges. You should clearly understand that the complaint I have just read is not evidence. A complaint is read in every criminal trial so that the defendant and the jury can hear the charges. You must not think it is evidence that he is guilty or that he is guilty because he has been charged. >> [snorts] >> A person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent. This means that you must start with the presumption that the defendant is innocent. This presumption continues throughout the trial and entitles the defendant to a verdict of not guilty unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Every crime is made up of parts called elements. The prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence or to do anything. If you find that the prosecution has not proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. A reasonable doubt is a fair, honest doubt growing out of the evidence or lack of evidence. It is not merely an imaginary or possible doubt, but a doubt based on reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt is just that. A doubt that's reasonable after a careful and considered examination of the facts and circumstances of this case. Uh but first, let's go over the elements. Uh again, the defendant has uh two pending charges. One is obstruction of official business. The defendant is charged with the crime of obstructing official business. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following eviden- elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant hindered, opposed, obstructed, or resisted Mark Fox or Tyrese McClinton obstruct includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command. The defendant must have actually resisted by what he said or did, but physical violence is not necessary. Second, that the defendant knew or had reason to know that Mark Fox or Tyrese McClinton were police officers performing their duties at the time. Third, that Mark Fox or Tyrese McClinton were performing their duties as police officers of the Lansing Police Department. Uh the defendant is also charged with the crime of furnishing false information. To prove this, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that Mark Fox or Tyrese McClinton was a peace officer who was conducting an investigation of a violation of state or local law or ordinance. Second, that Mark Fox or Tyrese McClinton informed the defendant that he was conducting an investigation. Third, that the defendant provided false information regarding that investigation to Mark Fox or Tyrese McClendon in a statement that the defendant knew was false or misleading. Fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully. That is, the defendant provided the false information voluntarily and intentionally with the intent to deceive and not because of a mistake or some other innocent reason. It is not a defense to the charge that the officer was able to obtain the information from another source or by different means if you determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to provide false information. >> You know, I was walking around the city [music] the other day and it was so quiet you could have heard a window being smashed. It's strange, really. I suppose a lot of people are like windows. So many are >> [music] >> see-through. So many get smashed. And so many wander around with a glazed look [music] over them. Are you like a window? Is your life [music] a pane? >> And on that note, hit the like button, subscribe to the channel, share this out, and drop your thoughts in the comment section. As always, a special thank you to all of our [music] channel members. Your support helps keep this channel moving, keeps me digging through all of this so you don't have to. And I appreciate every one of you. The jury now knows the charges. They know the [music] elements the city must prove, and they know the standard they'll be required to apply. Next time, we'll find out whether [music] the evidence presented in court will meet that burden. Till next time, I'll see you soon.