''THE RIGHT TO LOOK YOUR ACCUSER IN THE EYE

AND CROSS EXAMINE ON THE WITNESS STAND''

https://justicewillsetmefree.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-right-to-look-your-accuser-in-eye.html

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF AURORA
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,

Plaintiff

vs.

JENALYN MATUTE CABANAG,

Defendant

Case No. : 01CRI18—000022,

All Rights Reserve Without Prejudice
(U.C.C. 1-207/1-308/1-103)

:Jenalyn-Matute :Cabanag refused to give willful consent to being the artificial,

invisible, intangible creature not in actual existence JENALYN MATUTE CABANAG.

The following communication is from a Court Transcript dated November 8, 2018.

The Judge was Judge Patrick T. Smith.

The Judge: You also have the right to confront the witnesses the State would
present, to present any evidence on your own behalf, and I would issue orders
for any of your witnesses to appear if they wouldn't come voluntarily. Those
are called subpoenas.
I am lifting the 5,000-dollar bench warrant now that she has made an appearance and
re-identified herself. So there is no bench warrant on the other file. I'm not finding her
to be in noncompliance with that because that appearance has occurred and we heard
the motion on the attorney, and I am not going to address any of the other motions until
we have new counsel; however, bond needs to be set on this new
offense so –

The Prosecutor: Mr. Steele. We - I'm sorry.

The Judge: I'll get to you.

So, Jenalyn, now that you've been charged with a new Class 4 felony, I have an
obligation to set a bond. I'm going to hear the State's argument as to what they think I
should do, and then I'll give you an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Steele: Your Honor, the State's view is twofold - maybe more than twofold. First of
all, anyone who escapes after being expressly placed in the custody of the sheriff's office
and leaves the courthouse without permission is obviously a flight risk, has already flown.
I believe a substantial cash bond would be appropriate for that reason alone.

Meanwhile, Jenalyn is basically denying her identity, has failed to give the Court an
alternative last name. If, in fact, she's saying that Cabanag is not her last name, I think
she needs to be identified by last name so that we know who we're looking for in the
event that she fails to appear, and that would be for any bond that the Court would set.
I'm asking for $10,000 cash bond, Your Honor.

The Judge: All right, Jenalyn, the State is concerned that you will not make your
appearances, that you have not cooperated in identifying yourself, and that you have
shown a propensity to flee after being placed in the custody of the sheriff, and so they're
concerned about whether you would flee again.

:Jenalyn: Your Honor –

The Judge: Let me finish. So they're asking for a high bond, which you would have to
post before you would be released which would act as a surety to assure that you will
continue to make your appearances. How do you respond to their request?

:Jenalyn: That's absurd. I did not escape or anything. You told me you don't need me
here, so I went outside. I left. I didn't flee or anything. I've never missed any court date.
I'm always here.

The Judge: Anything else you'd like to share with me?

:Jenalyn: Yes, I was wondering if you received my letter.

The Judge: I received a packet of information which I filed that I would define as unable
to be understood by this Court. Contained within it, I believe, could potentially be seen
something along the lines of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. I'm not certain
that that's what it is, but to the extent that that is how it could be interpreted, I'm denying
that motion. I believe I clearly have jurisdiction over you and over the offenses that have
allegedly occurred within the boundaries of Aurora County.

:Jenalyn: Can you explain to me what - your jurisdiction over me.

The Judge: As a circuit court judge in the state of South Dakota, I'm authorized to
conduct court in Aurora County and preside over cases when allegations are made that
the laws of the state of South Dakota or a - city and municipal ordinances, but in your
case the laws of the state of South Dakota have been violated. So your motion to dismiss,
if that's what it was - it's very hard to understand what you filed, but to the extent that
that's –

:Jenalyn: So basically --

The Judge: To the extent that that's how it could be interpreted, I'm dismissing it - or
denying it.

:Jenalyn: So basically you're saying that even if you are my judge for my custody, my
divorce, and this criminal thing and - it's okay?

The Judge: That's a different question. If you're asking should I have to recuse myself
and not be the particular judge, that doesn't mean a judge doesn't have jurisdiction.

That means I may have a conflict. If you believe I have a conflict, there's a procedure
you can follow to ask to have me removed. I can tell you that I know of no conflict that
would prevent me from presiding over any of your cases, so I would not voluntarily take
myself off, and if this oral - are you making an oral request that I not be your judge?

:Jenalyn: No. I don't have any problem with you. As - I'm talking to you as a woman
to man.

The Judge: All right.

:Jenalyn: And it's just that I just feel like I'm not being justified in this court.

The Judge: Well, if you ask me to remove myself and have a different judge, I would
not do that. You would have to then file the formal procedure.

:Jenalyn: I'm not asking you to be removed. I'm just - I'm just asking the Court to hear
me.
The Judge: All right.

:Jenalyn: Because I think that I deserve to be heard.

The Judge: And I will hear you at the proper time and place, but right now, my job is
to advise you of your rights, set a bond, and schedule this for further proceeding. I have
advised you of your rights. The last right I want to tell you is that - you know, if a person
is convicted of an offense, it does become a part of their permanent record, and you
should be aware of that. I share concerns about your continued appearance.

:Jenalyn: When I came here last time, they told me "you go get anger management." I
came to court. She didn't even have the paperwork. I have to go get it. But you guys
already had - you guys already had judged me without even looking at the paperwork.
You guys want me to go get a psychological test. Even my anger management said I
don't need any recommendation; I'm not angry or anything.

The Judge: I believe, ma'am - but I don't want to speak for your attorney and this is
purely conjecture, but I'm trying to answer your questions because you're asking
questions - that all of that was done with the intention of assisting you in court for
purposes of sentencing because it was believed that there was an agreement reached
because it was believed that there was an agreement reached where you were going to
be pleading and then facing a sentencing; however, after - and it was me who did this;
it wasn't your attorney; it wasn't –

:Jenalyn: She was representing me that time. It's not --

The Judge: Let me finish please. I always let you finish; please let me.

:Jenalyn: Sorry.

The Judge: It wasn't either your counsel nor Mr. Steele; it was me who, after having
heard your story, said I could not accept your plea; it wasn't supported by a factual basis.

You couldn't tell me you had done something wrong so I couldn't accept your plea, so
all of those things were being done in anticipation of a plea and there was no plea. So
that's why none of that is, at this point, relevant and wouldn't be until such time as it was
properly presented to me in the proper order in which things are presented.

Right now you have those other charges, which are set for trial, and you now have a new
charge. And to that charge, you're going to be arraigned in 2 weeks, so I'm going to
schedule court for you in 2 weeks at 9 o'clock in the morning. You have told me you
intend to hire an attorney between now and then. I would be sure you advise –
:Jenalyn: I'm trying.

The Judge: Be sure you advise that counsel of when your court date is, and the only
thing I have left to do today is determine an appropriate bond for you. And I will tell you,
Miss Cabanag, or Jenalyn - did you wish to say something,

Mr. Steele?

MR. STEELE: No, Your Honor.

The Judge: I don't want to put you in jail.

:Jenalyn: No, I have a job. I have kids to feed.

The Judge: But I'm concerned about you following the rules and about you making your
court appearances and about you doing the things that make me comfortable that -- you
will make all of your court appearances.

:Jenalyn: I've never -- I've never missed any court appearances.

The Judge: I asked you to come forward sit in a chair and talk on the microphone, and
you spent 10 minutes arguing with me about why you shouldn't. I asked you your name,
and you refused to identify yourself. I remand you to the custody of the sheriff in a
contempt holding by this Court from the bench, and I was advised that it's alleged you
left the building. So I have concerns about your continuing to appear.

At the same token, I don't want to take you from your job and your children, but I have
- but I recognize Mr. Steele's concerns. So what I'm going to do for a bond in this
case is I'm going to set bond at a 5,000-dollar personal surety.

:Jenalyn: What's that mean?

The Judge: That means I'm going to release you on your own recognizance;
however, it's not what's called a personal recognizance bond. If you fail to make
your appearances and fail to comply with the Court and fail to follow the rules, then
you're subject to having that $5,000 in post.

:Jenalyn: Can you provide me the rules in paper so that I can go over it so I don't
have - I won't miss it?

THE COURT: Yes. You will get bond papers, and the first thing you'll be required to do
is sign them and acknowledge that you got them. If you refuse to sign them, you'll be
held in jail until you do, and once they're signed, you'll be released.
:Jenalyn: But isn't this like - it's like when you sign something, you're in contact with
you guys?

The Judge: Ma'am, when you sign your bond papers, you're acknowledging that
you received them, you read them, and you understood your responsibilities,
just what you just asked me for. No one is trying to trick you. No one is trying to
fool you into doing something that they can then say "gotcha." No one is doing
that. So –

:Jenalyn: So this one –

The Judge: I've set your bond. I'm remanding you to the custody of the sheriff now, so
you can't just leave. They will process your bond, provide you with bond papers, explain
to you what the expectations of the Court are in that paperwork, and set you for a ourt
date. Between now and then, you are to contact the counsel you're going to hire or, if
you determine that you do need court-appointed counsel, you're to let the clerk know
that and Ms. Maule Rossow will be right back on your case. That brings this to a
conclusion. You're remanded to the sheriff.

MR. STEELE: One further thing, Your Honor. . . ?

The Judge: Yes.

MR. STEELE: As part of her bond conditions, if she insists that her last name is not
Cabanag, I believe she needs to inform the magistrate, the clerk, as to the last name
that she thinks she does have. We can't just bond someone under the name of Jenalyn.

The Judge: Well, I would direct you to bond her under the name you know her to be,
Jenalyn Matute Cabanag, and if she wishes to contest that that is who she is - that's
who I've identified her as previously in court –
(**remember the Judge said, he doesn’t speak in capitalization)

MR. STEELE: Okay.

The Judge: But I think she has the right to remain silent when asked what her name
is and doesn't have to tell you what she wishes to be addressed as. That doesn't mean
she's not charged as this person; it just means you have to prove she's
one and the same person that committed the offense.

MR. STEELE: Understood.

The Judge: All right, you're remanded to the sheriff.

(Proceedings concluded at 11:10 a.m.)

 The Following is a communication is from a court appearance.
This was one day after the original charges were dismissed by the
State's Prosecutor Mr. Steele.

In a nutshell, on 11-21-2018, Judge Patrick T. Smith denied an Affidavit

of Truth with Notice to File a Claim, An Abatement and A Writ of
Habeas Corpus with Judicial Notice This was done under penalty of
perjury and under the seal by :Jenalyn delivered and served right
inside the court.

This Affidavit was done with Rules of Evidence that any

mind with an honest conscience can comprehend, if they
take the time to read and analyze the words based on
Truth of Fact which is fact law.
The Judge said: there are a lot of frivolous filings that have illegitimate meanings not
in any manner that I recognize and it doesn't have any basis in realm. I would describe
this as pseudo legal nonsense and Gibberish. It makes no sense to me, it's nonsensical.
I don't understand what it is, or what you're asking me to do but to the extent it is asking
me to do anything and involving a dismissal or not pursuing this case against you, it is
denied. If you're simply putting us on notice that you are going to file some kind of a
claim, I would suggest that you file whatever kind of a claim in a civil action that you file
separately and file the proper procedure. I am denying and not taking any action on this
whatsoever.
  Now we're here today on criminal file 18-31

This was the new charge after the first felony charges was dismissed
by Mr. Steele on 11-06-2018:

This new charge was as followed:

22-11A-2. First degree escape—Felony. Any escape by a prisoner constitutes first
degree escape if the prisoner effects the escape:
(1) By means of the use or threat of violence;
(2) From a secure correctional facility; or
(3) From the immediate custody of a law enforcement officer or Department of
Corrections employee. First degree escape is a Class 4 felony.

:Jenalyn cross examined the Deputy on the witness stand and asked the
Deputy Sheriff: ''when you came to my house, did you have a warrant of arrest? The
Deputy answered: ''I don't recall''

:Jenalyn continued, on August 8th you came to my house questioning me and told me
you had to take me to a Magistrate, and you took me straight to the court jail and I
stayed there for five days, and those charges were already dismissed. And I didn't even
get a warrant of arrest for that charge and I'm being charged on a charge
connected to that charge. I was denied due process of law. I was taken into
custody when I was supposed to be taken before the Magistrate but what
happened is you took me straight to the Police Station where I was booked.
The Judge stopped :Jenalyn and said ''this is not the time to ask questions'' :Jenalyn
countered: The Officer already answered my question: he had no warrant for my
arrest.''
Judge Smith asked: is there any witnesses you wish to call?

:Jenalyn spoke out and said: ''I would like to cross examine the
Plaintiff''

The Judge asked: "Who is the Plaintiff?

:Jenalyn countered: ''The State of South Dakota: the court

papers say I am being charged by the State of South Dakota''

►"I would like to see the State of South Dakota''◄

The Judge asked: ''Are you calling the State of South Dakota as a witness''?

Yes.
:Jenalyn:

Judge Smith: They can't be produced as they are

not a particular individual, so I am denying

your request to talk to them.
(**Now, stop reading and scroll back up and read again the first thing that the Judge said at the beginning.)

I will now hear the Prosecutor as the burden of proof is on him, not you.

The Prosecutor continued that :Jenalyn is charged with the crime of First degree
escape and read the same definition that is mentioned in this Post.

Judge Smith said: ''I am not concerned with any of the definitions found in the statutes.

She was in the custody of law enforcement. I am however concerned with her being
charged with escaping. There are a few ways to look at this:

Was she under arrest by law enforcement?

Had law enforcement said to her she was under arrest. That you are in my custody.

But instead she was taken by the court. When I look at page seven of the transcript at
exactly what I said: Sheriff: I want you to take her out of the court room, and we'll deal
with her when I'm done with everybody else.

I will tell you my intention was to place her into custody of the Sheriff and I find no fault
in anyone reaching that conclusion. But the language used was that, well, then I'm going
to order you in contempt. Do you believe that was holding her under color of my
department?

That is what I think would have to be established that I ordered her to become a prisoner.
I looked at the transcript and that is not what I said. I ordered that you were to
be taken out of the courtroom and that I would deal...we would all deal with the
conclusion of that.
(**they would deal with me when they are done with everyone else, when the court room is empty and nothing left but me because
they don’t want those who are in court to learn something from what I have to say especially when I told the judge I am not the
person he was calling from the bench after he called the name three times.)

Because I did not remand you in the custody of the Sheriff despite my intention, I don't
expect you to know my intention, unless I properly vocalize it. So I think the fault is
with me, however, I think you are the beneficiary of that statement and I do
not believe the power exists in the state to charge you with escape from this
court, so I am dismissing the charges.
In conclusion of this matter, earlier Judge Smith mentioned there are a lot of frivolous filings and it means
it has no illegitimate meanings not in any manner that I recognize and it doesn't have any basis in
realm. I would describe this as pseudo legal nonsense and Gibberish. It makes no sense to me,
it's nonsensical. I don't understand what it is, or what you're asking me to do but to the extent it is
asking me to do anything and involving a dismissal or not pursuing this case against you, it is denied.

Like Judge Smith, :Jenalyn doesn't expect Judge Smith to know her intention, unless she properly
vocalize it. :Jenalyn did better than that, her intention, unless she properly put in writing bearing Rules of
Evidence. If Judge Smith took the time to read the full content with the Rules of evidence, he
would have seen the Affidavit of Truth with Notice to File a Claim in its proper context, but like
so many other men and women, they fail to take words in their proper context and miss the entire true
message content.
 In this court proceeding, :Jenalyn spoke out and commanded
the Plaintiff South Dakota to step forward and approach the bench, to look
her accuser in the eye and cross-examine the accuser on the witness stand.

Judge Patrick T. Smith said,

quote:► the State of South Dakota cannot be produced because they are not
a particular individual, so I am denying your request, ◄end of quote.

By denying :Jenalyn's request

 to look the Plaintiff State of South Dakota in the eye

and cross-examine the Plaintiff on the witness stand,

Judge Patrick T. Smith

violated his oath of allegiance and oath of office
to defend and uphold the Original Charter 1889
South Dakota Bill of Rights,
§7 Rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions:

 the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel;
 to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
 to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face;
 and is also in breach of the Original Charter 1787-1789 Constitution for
the united states of America, Bill of Rights,

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Judge used the transcripts and ruled by them.

He said: keep quiet. . you are winning.

🔊FELONY CHARGE, CASE DISMISSED!

…………..NO PROBABLE CAUSE!..........

NOW, WHERE IS MY RIGHTS TO REMEDY?

After the dismissal of the Vexatious Litigation the same Judge Patrick Smith
continued to deny my right and STAMPED: DENIED P/T/S with no explanation
my Motion to Claim back my property (My son) who was only 7 years old and
is now being held on ransom by the court and being kidnapped by the
estranged husband who has NO merit.

ALL Affidavit of Truth I submitted to the clerk of court (who is RELATIVE of

the husband= CONFLICT OF INTEREST!+also denied me my right to file my
paperwork with peace but instead telling me my case has been dismissed and
she doesn’t understand the reason of my filing a claim to get my property back
and advise me to just print out the dismissal provided above, give to the
estranged husband and that my son will be released to me… SHE LIED on my
face! are ALL denied and ALL remained un-rebutted!

THE CLOCK IS TICKING!

All Rights Reserve Without Prejudice
(U.C.C. 1-207/1-308/1-103)
👉 Thanks and Credits to :Dana :Obar, :Jenalyn’s Primary Officer👈