Article Image John Stuart

John Stuart's "Final" Hearing Before the Trial

Written by Subject: Arizona's Top News
St. of Arizona versus John C. Stuart
Maricopa Co. Superior Court (downtown)
Monday, January 25, 2009
Second Degree Murder Trial

Synopsis (see links)

Monday, January 25 , 2010 was the final pre-trial conference before John Stuart's scheduled February 1st trial start.  However the trial was not going to take place.

On Jan. 15, 2010 there was a motion by defense council, Public Defender John Johnson, to withdraw from the case (because John Stuart had filed suit against him in both Arizona and federal court (the latter under a civil rights 42USC1983 violation) essentially of not representing him to his fullest ability but rather conspiring with Judge Paul McMurdie amongst many other things in trying to get him declared incompetent to stand trial.  I did not believe Mr. Stuart when he broached me with this particular conspiracy at the time.  After this hearing I do now.

I went into this hearing expecting both the defense council and the judge to recuse themselves.  How can they be impartial when they are being sued by the defendant --- though at some point this is a problem, as a defendant could always put off a trial by repeatedly suing the judge and/or his defense attorney(s)?

This hearing was not exclusively for John Stuart.  There were over a dozen others awaiting Judge McMurdie at 8:30 that morning.  Mr. Stuart's case was scheduled sixth.  So I watched case after case, including a very good defense lawyer complicate the state's case against his client.  After this third case, Mr. Stuart got up and left the galley -- to go to the bathroom -- and I watched the judge's eyes follow Mr. Stuart out of the courtroom.  The judge then said that since Mr. Johnson (Stuart's court appointed defense attorney) had been waiting so long this morning he would take his case next.  Mad scramble to get Mr. Stuart back in the courtroom.  

Once back in the courtroom Mr. Stuart remained standing -- as is his custom -- behind the bar in the galley rather than along side "his" defense attorney. 

John Stuart and the judge had a exchange as to whether the judge was going to be following the rules of the Arizona Supreme Court or his own rules?  The judge said he followed ALL of the rules of the Supreme Court in his courtroom, and that would be the case in his trial.

Mr. Stuart brought up Rule 6.3 (a) and (c):

Rule 6.3. Duties of counsel; withdrawal

a. Notice of Appearance.At his or her first appearance in any court on behalf of a defendant, an attorney, whether privately retained or appointed by the court, shall file a notice of appearance on a form provided by the clerk of the court.

c. Duty Upon Withdrawal. No attorney shall be permitted to withdraw after a case has been set for trial except upon motion accompanied by the name and address of another attorney, together with a signed statement by the substituting attorney that he or she is advised of the trial date and will be prepared for trial. Appointed counsel may withdraw after the arraignment on the grounds of his or her client's ineligibility only upon a showing that withdrawal will not disrupt the orderly processing of the case.

Another interesting exchange was the statement by the judge to Mr. Stuart that the judge would take Mr. Johnson's word as the truth -- because Mr. Johnson was on officer of the court -- and that proof was not necessary when we had Mr. Johnson's word.  The mere claim that Mr. Johnson had indeed filed the appropriate paperwork was sufficient to move along without providing the proof.  How very convenient.

There were some more exchanges, including a Rule 11 inquiry (mental competency of dependent) in which Stuart said the issue was moot because an attorney had not been appointed.

The judge them moved on to Defense Attorney's motion to withdraw.  The judge did not want him to withdraw and spent about 20 minutes trying to keep him from withdrawing.  The reason Mr. Johnson gave for his request for  withdraw was the lawsuit Mr. Stuart had filed against him. 

The judge said he too was a party to this lawsuit, and certainly Mr. Johnson's lawyer had told him what his lawyer had informed him of, namely this lawsuit had no merit and would be tossed out of the courts.  Mr. Johnson replied that his attorney in fact DID NOT so inform him that the lawsuit was frivolous and without merit.  Gosh, I would have loved to know what Mr. Johnson's lawyer told him;-)

The judge later dropped this bombshell.  In his opinion, "Mr. Stuart is not mentally competent to try this case."  Mr. Stuart's court appointed defense council, Mr. Johnson jumped to say he shared the judge's viewpoint in this regard.  And he added that one of Mr. Stuart's court appointed psychologist's determined that Mr. Stuart suffered some kind of unnamed psychosis.  [
This is what the psychologist claimed: 'Mr. Stuart may suffer from a disorder that renders in him a compulsion to filing forms with the court.']

Mr. Johnson went on to add that if only Mr. Stuart would cooperate with further evaluation by this psychologist the root of his dementia might be uncovered.  Yes, if only Mr. Stuart would cooperate -- that is the issue isn't it?  If only he would assist in his conviction.  The other two court appointed psychiatrists who did not find any sort of imaginary disorder  and declared Mr. Stuart competent for trial were not brought up.  Even the psychologist who brought up this imaginary disorder declared Stuart competent to stand trial under the meaning of the law.

The only time Ms. Susie Charbel, the Maricopa County prosecutor, was asked anything was her opinion on Mr. Stuart's competence.  She stated Mr. Stuart had demonstrated throughout his knowledge of law, procedure and had well articulated himself including today.  She knew of no evidence Mr. Stuart did not understand the nature of the charges against him, nor could not assist in his own defense.  I was confused --- I thought Mr. Johnson was the court appointed defense council.

Mr. Stuart interrupts the judge at some point -- frankly not being able to tell when the judge had ceased making a comment -- and the judge threatened him with contempt and arrest if he interrupted him again.  The judge said he would not discuss either Rule 6.3 or 6.1 (right to counsel or to waive counsel).  He then asked Stuart did he want a lawyer or to represent himself (with clearly no discussion allowed unless he wanted to be hold in contempt)?  After a long pause, Mr. Stuart replied he was unprepared to give the judge an answer on that at this time.  I don't blame Stuart, I had a bunch of questions too.

The judge said that was the first thing Mr. Stuart had said today that he understood.

He went on to rule Mr. Johnson was relieved of further responsibility in this case.  He ordered a new public defender be appointed until such time as Mr. Stuart made his decision as to whether to have a lawyer represent him, or to represent himself.  He strongly suggested Mr. Stuart meet with this new public defender and then decide. 
Mr. Stuart wanted to know did this mean the court would accept his motions?  A resounding "NO!" from the judge.   He cannot file motions with the court unless he is representing himself.
The judge then recused himself.

So the judge tries to get the defense council to stay on, and then recuses himself for the same reason!?  Come on!

Ostensibly a new court date of Feb. 26 at 8:30a.m. was set for a new judge (in a new Division?).  We will see.

And for those keeping count this makes two judges and four defense lawyers whom have withdrawn from this case.  And another half dozen judges he has passed in front of.

15 Comments in Response to

Comment by justice served
Entered on:


people defending this guy, because he was drunk. I have listen to John, read his e-mails, he is not a nice guy. if you don't agree with him he gets nasty. he has issues with women big time. if he was so afraid why didn't he call 911 or drive off, rather run a red light than be dead.... he had the gun, shot in the head while struggling, little hard to believe... all he did was ask for money all the time... I stopped listening to him and would trash his hateful e-mails... he didn't like when I replied to him, he was never wrong... no matter what he didn't have pull out his gun... a man is still dead... he really thought he was going to get off, everyone was lying... he kept talking about some woman stalking him, sound on the crazy side... glad he got convicted...
Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

God will decide?  What a load of BS from "great guy"?  (Unless he means "G"ood "O"rderly "D"irection of the masonic order "GOD"....   The guy got out of his car, drunk off his ass and was physically going after the guy!  He is charged with murder, not man slaughter.  Big difference.  If the prosecutor wanted to get greedy as this guy I am told would be a target for reasons, they'd try to get him for murder.  I doubt the guy ever counted on a drunk lunatic getting out of his car that way and coming over to his!  Look buddy, when you are up against things that I hear that he is, you get a little sensitive to the REALITY of a situation.  He didn't know that this guy wasn't armed!  What an ass!  Not that I am about just shooting someone, not at all, but, from what I understand, this guy is a major big-time whistleblower who is a threat to the RICO criminal enterprise, so, that is what I see here.  A man might unjustly go to prison from provocations that benefit the RICO enterprise!  Get a heart buddy!

Comment by Great Guy
Entered on:

 Must be thinking he won. He played the system. Jurors who are DUMB.   

When it came right down to it John shot an unarmed man who was backing away. Plus John you could have raised your window. Not cut him off. Had your girlfriend call 911 as it happened.

God will decide.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

@ "the help"... a little confused as what I thought I watched was the opening arguments of a murder trial, not a probate for an estate... will you explain further?  Please?  

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

I went through similar things in two courts used to disparage me and mark me socially a criminal or degenerate, when that doesn't work, the racketeer will always, desperation pull out the MENTAL ILLNESS or psychological labeling- card.  These tactics are very common when you understand that the Royally-controlled Bush family appointed 26 of the current US attorneys, and owns 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.   My argument before the 9th circuit is that the Bush family appointed lawyers and legal system checkmates a fair argument in their RICO alliance to the Queen and the Vatican.  My appellate breif was "lost/ignored" for several months  until within 24 hours (they back-dated by one day) of my sitting with Mayor Ed Foster at the Quartsite rally.  My grandmother Ruth Mary Sinclair (of the Stuart Royal lineages from what I understand, and what Ed Foster subtlly referred to as comment and by FB comment) died the morning of the Quartsite March.  I missed the Ed Foster Breakfast club meeting to attend her funeral that morning.  She is a descendant of Rosslyn Chapel Scottland who was allegedly deliberately impregnated with my father during Nazi Germany (she stayed married to my Grandfather who taught me about "slipping someon a mickey"...) while working in administration for Top Secret operations appointment at WA state.  She was a secretary where they made bombs.  Her life has been a difficult one, thus my father's as well as the authentic Stuart true rights to the throne are in Great competition to the "counterfeits" in Great Britain. 

John Stuart, if a true Stuart, may not realize the power that his last name possesses as a threat to the current system and the system run by the competition for uling their "Zion" that the Mormon's hijacked and I believe will counterfeit in Unison with the Bush family using their claims that the "Davidic Bloodline" shall rule.   Like me, Stuart appears to be warped into similar unfair legal perpetrations that were a result of being run off the road in August 2007 and my RICO suit of 11/9/09 exposing RICO in the court system and similar tactics.  They tried to force a "public pretender" on me that served at that time the exact same position as my exhusband 20 years ago at as "of counsel" Phillips & Lyon as I identify as a front firm for RICO of all sorts in its alleged relationship to what until recently was known as Phillips & Associates.  THE SAME ALLEGED MODEL AS IN QUARTSITE.... (I was allegedly and still am a party that can open up investigations and discovery not only in RICO, but as a party to marital community against these racketeering lawyers from my divorce)- 9 volumes of documentation in the courts identifying a RICO syndicate without realizing it.  Stuart seems bright, and if what I hear is true, he may know this or not, but in my years of research not being caught up in a murder trial, as a very possible pawn in competition for the crown of England in Zionist politics and alleged DNA evidence to be unfolded at the right time at Rosslyn Chapel.  I believe that 9 knights Templar (original international banking dynasty inquisitioned by pope and Phillip of France) are rumored to be buried in their armor somewhere?  And it ties into a "grail" of architecture stonemasonry, much of it damaged at Rosslyn to this day.  (Note Braveheart movie)...  This again, is a part of  racketeering (which is evidence in itself form Kennedy's 1961 RICO laws THAT CONSPIRACIES DO EXIST and in his speeches acknowledges these "repugnant" secret societies!).  Mormons teach their membership the term "Secret combinations"  without necessarily explaining the details that they are pawns in racketeering criminality today for the Queen/Rome alliance.  They are in a cult where they listen to a man for direction who runs a Global empire that has infiltrators and controllers in the FBI, CIA and NSA by gross over-representations.  I want to encourage John that there is hope, even if the worst case happens.  Technologies are used today that people do not know exist that can manipulate the situation that happened...  I have to mention one thing, I couldn't help but notice the repeated mention of "adirondack chairs" by the deceased's wife (assuming he died)... As a firefighter who set me up one night for a DUI that arranged to have me meet Sammy the Bull, although not knowing who he was, claimed to be from the Adirondak family of NY.  He is a fire captain in Phoenix and was flown to NY to work (evidence of thermite?).  Professor Pete Padilla of Denver Colorado, former ASU sociology Ph.D. (fired for identifying the conspiracy) left Arizona because of fixed juries!  I hope this information gets to you John Stuart!  I know you have a lot on your plate right now.  I am going to now attend a memorial of a great lady who was a Director of an educational section of Arizona colleges and refused a seat on the board in resistance to identifying possible corruption... She immediatley developed stomache cancer that she of course, did not survive.  A great woman named Lee Fournet, Ph.D. friend and long-term client.  May she rest in peace. Lee, as well, became a victim of roadway abuse, targeting and slander as shared with me during her facial visits.  Many other victims, Loretta Bowersock the mother of Terri of Terri's consignment shared with me her common-law marriage partner's solar patents exceeded the value of Bill Gates' dynasty during one of her facials... and the two of them, like my father wound up dead in John McCain dominated- Tucson area, where David Rothschild just became Mayor?  Wake up people.  WAKE UP.  

I wish Mr. Stuart the best.  Good will prevail over evil in the end, John.  Hang on to that.  My father John Sinclair Dyer was martyred within hours of the US DOJ receiving my investigative demands detailing my RICO allegations.  He, as well, was a great man.  It was very shortly after our conversations about this "conspiracy" and our family... and it was made very known that it was not something that could be openly talked about.  That at the right time, certain things are going to happen, and I believe that just as much as there is a force for good, there is a force for evil and good will prevail!  God Bless!  

Any time a lay person labels another as "crazy, or mentally ill, or dangerous"... BIG RED FLAG to racketeering cover-ups.  Many DSM IV diagnostic labels today are created politically to "divide and conquer" the community.  A lot of crazy behavior is a healhty reaction to this crime syndicate.  Homeland security now legally can have you drugged, terrorized, infiltrated, framed for crimes, you name it.  Why do you think Utah is getting 1.5 billion from GOV to spy on us further?  They MUST BRING AMERICANS TO THEIR KNEES!  This is why!   

Comment by forman red
Entered on:

I always wishd to go out with a rifle on my roof. But scared shiity pants on a drunk I personaly pissed off even better. Gutted my commanding oficer. Wished a customers unborn child dead as well customer. Yet great man peacher and loves all races. Prison loves him.  

Comment by pregnant women
Entered on:

 Heck John wished a pregnant womens unborn would die as she upset him on a work job he had. Great guy he is.

Comment by the help
Entered on:

John Stuart's is not the defendant.  The name they are using is referred to as the decedent.  look up irs publication 559.  it talks about the 1040 form.  the judge and attorney are acting as the trustees for john stuart's estates.  john has to step in and file the judge, the attorney, and the court case on a ucc1 as the debtor and john stuart's as the secured party, and john stuart's the living being as the private party authorized to administer the john stuart's estate.  by filing the ucc, that gives the agent, john stuart's jurisdiction over the case.  you can even file the state as the debtor.  that gives john stuart's jurisdiction over the whole state and county laws, etc. 

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Just another unrelated, but typical example of Maricopa Co. Attorney's Office and the LEO's:

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

Can a defendant file Motions if it not clear that he is representing himself or if an attorney is representing him?

If a judge is asked by a defendant whose representation is unclear, whether or not his motions can be granted, and then the judge answers with a resounding "No!" has the judge not validated that the motions do exist? Has he not also just certified by his answer that he is accepting that the defendant is representing himself at the same time that he is saying that there is no present representation of the defendant?

Who is upholding the motions if there is no legal representation of the defendant at the time? Is it the judge? Or has he just put his foot in his mouth?

Comment by sheseekstruth
Entered on:

Powell, awesome job on this story!!!  John, many are praying for you.  This I'm sure it's not fun but you standing up for your rights is fighting for all our rights.  Thank you John!!  Sorry I was not able to be there but am planing to be at the next one.

Comment by Gene Kernan
Entered on:

Whoever gets to visit Stuart should mention that his RIGHT to defend himself cannot be conditioned upon acceptance of the judge's "permission" to "represent" himself (turning him into a "third party" and waiving essential rights. 

It is separate and apart from his right to counsel, or to waive counsel.  If he can't find, or can't get to, Faretta v. California, send me an email.  I'll send a copy.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

It occurred to me while in the shower this morning, either the judge intended to talk the defense council into staying on the case and then recusing himself.  Or -- and I guess I am not that devious or suspicious, or it would have occurred to me sooner -- it makes far more sense he fully intended to go on with the trial next week despite Stuart's objections.  And I am quite certain Stuart would have been allowed to watch the trial from a cell the moment he uttered his first protest.

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

So Powell, let me get this straight: pretty much all along, John has maintained that he wants to represent himself but didn't mind assistence from a court appointed lawyer in preparing his case, provided the guy wasn't a total tool, right?

OK and Judge McMurdie, by submitting John not just to the ONE competency hearing as required and normal, but two more. And now we understand Judge McMurdie has his own opinion, that John is incompetent. So Judge McMurdie in effect, attempted to over-rule the psychiatric profession here? Or does Judge McMurdie have medical credentials?

Or does Judge McMurdie apply the same loose, arbitrary or unethical standards with psychiatric medicine as he does legal court proceedure?

I'm dumbfounded by the little confab with Judge McMurdie and John's court-appointed lawyer in OPPOSITION of prosecution to get John declared incompetent. Did they get the court clerk to weigh in on the debate? If Judge McMurdie's court has proceedurally turned into a democracy, it seems only fair that observers and the general public get to have their say too.

But in a more normal world, if Judge McMurdie truly felt as is the competency determination system is flawed, which by word and action he has demonstrated (his medical credentials notwithstanding), shouldn't he have recused himself from the case?

Hell I'm no lawyer but doesn't it seem that a judge with a deep-seated belief that the accused is totally bonkers, wouldn't that tend to prejudice a judge, to effect his perception of the accused's credibility? Might it effect his decision at sentencing time?

At the least, it sounds like John would be better off with the prosecuting attorney as his lawyer. I wonder why Judge McMurdie didn't set it up that way since he rearranges court procedure like some of our wives do with the furniture. Don't like the way it is? Just change it around and make it comfy for yourself.

Oh and do we suppose investigators will stop prepping whitnesses and loosing evidence or is that process still ongoing?

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

Open letter to pshychiatric community:

After careful study, I believe I have isolated the cause of the disorder that renders in a person a compulsion to filing forms with the court. And while I have not defined the taxonimy for same as this early date, this compunction might be described thus:

"Oh shit, if I don't do something my life is totally fucked."

Disturbingly, this pathology appears to be more wide spread than we previously could have imagined. A shocking 100% of our test subjects showed what we now refer to as:

"A marked tendency towards self-preservation".

We look forward to working with you to further understand this disease and it's remediation.