“Answer My Question or You’re Going to Jail!” — Judge Holds Defendant in Contempt
“Answer My Question or You’re Going to Jail!” — Judge Holds Defendant in Contempt
“Answer My Question or You’re Going to Jail!” — Judge Holds Defendant in Contempt
Preview
A circuit court arraignment devolved into a classic sovereign citizen standoff when a defendant repeatedly refused to answer basic procedural questions. Citing pseudo-legal theories about statutory jurisdiction and the U.S. Constitution, the defendant dodged the judge’s inquiries regarding his right to counsel and maximum penalties, ultimately ending up in a jail cell for summary contempt.
The Arraignment and Sovereign Citizen Arguments
The courtroom proceedings centered on defendant Trevor Mloud, who appeared before the judge for a circuit court arraignment on charges including resisting and obstructing conservation officers—a high court misdemeanor enhanced by a habitual offender notice, carrying up to three years in prison—alongside a marine safety violation.
From the very beginning, Mloud made it clear he intended to challenge the court’s legitimacy rather than participate in standard procedures. Declaring that he was appearing “by special appearance,” Mloud refused to acknowledge standard inquiries regarding his desire to represent himself. Instead, he immediately pivoted to demanding that the court prove its legal authority:
Challenging Statutory Jurisdiction: Mloud argued that the court lacked constitutional jurisdiction, claiming that criminal statutory jurisdiction does not exist under his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Rejecting Penalties: When the judge outlined the maximum penalties—including up to three years behind bars and a $1,000 fine—Mloud repeatedly claimed he did not understand the nature and cause of the action against him.
Citing Pseudo-Legal Precedents: Mloud attempted to school the bench on common law versus military tribunals, quoting case law out of context and refusing to follow the step-by-step framework required by law to validate a pro-se waiver.
The Judge’s Exhaustive Explanations
Patiently attempting to establish a lawful record, the judge walked Mloud through the structural foundations of the state legal system. The judge explained that the Michigan Constitution of 1963, ratified by the voters, establishes the judicial power of the circuit court, while the legislature enacts statutes that prosecutors enforce.
“I have subject matter jurisdiction over those crimes. I have personal jurisdiction over you because you’ve been alleged to have committed them in our county. That’s my jurisdiction.”
Despite the clear explanation, Mloud continued to interrupt, argued about published rules of conduct, and even triggered an accidental hot-mic disruption from an unmuted participant in the prosecutor’s office, whom the judge promptly removed from the virtual hearing.
The Ultimatum and Contempt Order
As the back-and-forth dragged on, the judge made it clear that courtroom proceedings could not be held hostage by endless jurisdictional debates. Under the law, a judge must ensure that a self-represented defendant comprehends the charges and penalties before allowing them to waive counsel.
When Mloud explicitly stated he would not answer questions about the penalties until the court re-argued its constitutional legitimacy, the judge issued a final ultimatum:
“You are either going to answer my question or I’m going to hold you summarily in contempt and the court officer will bring you to a jail cell and we’ll talk about it tomorrow.”
True to his word, when Mloud continued to dig in his heels and reject the court’s authority, the judge swiftly brought the standoff to an end. Finding him in direct contempt for refusing to comply with lawful court requests, the judge sentenced Mloud to one day in jail, ordering the session to reconvene the following day.
