The Honorable Judge Abigail Howard
Re: CR121-26
Jacob J. Wipf
Volga SD 57071
shamblesheep@gmail.com
Also full commentary at www.shamblesheep.com since the day I received the Warrant.
Pursuant to The 14 Amendment of the Constitution of the United States I ask the court to rescind CR 121-26 and arrange for a trial to account for the following:
Equal Justice under the law: there were two of us. Every aspect of this Warrant pertains to two people. The witnesses Gerald Jensen and Alice Intermill intentionally withheld this from the police in order to frame me with a fabricated crime. State Attorneys Nelson and Oxner and the police have withheld this evidence (all documented exhaustively at shamblesheep.com since the day I received the Warrant) from the Court since June 29 when I handed it to them at police headquarters. Prior to calling the police the witnesses called the other person (the most respected man in the neighborhood) in order to fabricate a charge that would involve only me--they know the neighborhood would rise up if they tried to involve him. He called me to let me know that the police would only be coming after me--and the police willingly complied, presuming (I have to assume) that the witnesses were dealing in good faith. But every aspect of this Warrant pertains to two people. This is the latest in an 8 year campaign of using the police as a private militia to terrorize me (their cams will reveal that I tell them this every time they come out here to tell me I am doing nothing wrong). The Sheriff knows who my accomplice is, but wants nothing to do with any of this. “But why only me,” I asked him. “Because he hates you,” he replied. This reveals the true motive of the witnesses, and the criminal nature of this Warrant. “Go,” the Sheriff tells me, “make an appointment with the State Attorney.” Twice I visited the State Attorney’s 0ffice. Twice they sent out their secretaries to tell me there was no room on their calendar for as much as an appointment in the foreseeable future. I tell the secretaries that I can give them another $100,000 vandal like myself. But they have all the crime they need to pursue their objective, because this was never about crime (the fact that the witnesses hid from the police that I had an accomplice proves this). Like the Sheriff, the State Attorneys are not interested in anything I have to say, because like the Sheriff, they know full well that this has nothing to do with the prosecution of crime and everything to do with the pursuit of a person. They have known since June 29 that everything on the Warrant pertains to two people. They have done nothing, not only violating my 14 Amendment right to equal justice, but have allowed this Warrant to exercise its debilitating influence and lethal danger on the life of an innocent citizen and the assassination of my Christian testimony. But why would neither the police nor the State Attorney refuse to investigate a crime (the Warrant sets an upper limit of $100,100) of such a magnitude? Because they both know that what they’re dealing with at this point is reckless and frivolous legal depravity. Neither they nor the witnesses ever expected this to get to this point. And now they would like for it to disappear. In fact, however, the police and State Attorney are now covering up an obstruction of justice: intentional withholding of vital evidence, and intentional lying to the police. They (the police and State Attorney) were misled, and yet continue to pretend otherwise. This is the elephant in the room mentioned in the earlier brief to the Court. I have been documenting this since the day I received the Warrant at www.shamblesheep.com, and, if my tracker is accurate, it has been read in most parts of the world.
The witnesses Gerald Jensen and Alice Intermill lied to the police in telling them that they “personally” gave me an “order to vacate” the industrial park. This is the “one word” I referred to in the previous brief that proves that they lied to the police. The other is “intentional.” This is entirely fabricated. This is the assassination of my Christian testimony. Policeperson Pike knew nothing of such when he interrogated me, as the cam will show (the cam also reveals that he knew nothing about the second vandal). He honed in on whether or not I had gotten re-permission after Intermill’s death months before, a ridiculous exercise if he had evidence that I had been given a “verbal” dictum (“refusal to vacate”). But the State Attorney knew he did not have enough to get a judge to write a warrant on 1) crossing a truck park (which the entire town does every day) and 2) thinning mangled trees that I planted 25 years ago (and have been thinning and pruning ever since), so they cooked the evidence by adding “personal” and “intentional”, knowing full well that what they had amounted to no more than crossing a Walmart parking lot. The fact that the State Attorneys now ask the Judge to shred this evidence so that I cannot expose their complicity is clear proof that they know it to be false. The fact that they are running from me is clear proof that they are afraid of being exposed in covering up for their rich patrons. When I told the Sheriff about the truckpark and shrubs, he shook his head and said, “there must be something else.” There is: the false evidence--“the personal'' and “the intentional”, which they fabricated to pass judicial muster. Now that they are about to be exposed in front of a jury, they ask the judge to shred the damning evidence fabricated to frame me. This is what the Sheriff thought they had. But policeman Pike knew nothing of this, or else he would not have run me through the ringer to see if I had gotten re-permission in the months since Intermill died. Which means they cooked up “personal,” “intentional,” and “refusal to vacate”afterwards in order to pass judicial muster. Without the “personal” and “intentional”, the warrant is a criminal piece of frivolous and reckless legal depravity on the part of the State Attorney. And the Sheriff wanted no part of this when he still thought they had “personal” and “intentional.” Technically, the Sheriff tells me, you can get arrested crossing a Walmart parking lot, but “they must have something else on you.” They do: a false statement of “personal” and “intentional” evidence they now ask the court to shred. Since June 29, they (State Attorneys) have withheld from the court that they are in violation of the 14 Amendment, that they know that every aspect of the Warrant pertains to two people. And now, knowing that the “personal” and “intentional” are about to be exposed as fabrications, they seek to cover their tracks by having the court shred the damning evidence. Why would they not be interested in my accomplice? Why would they now be afraid of having the lies of the witnesses exposed as such? Why is only one person on the hook for $100,000? Any why is anything I say to the police and State Attorney summarily dismissed. Judge Garland wants the “American people to have confidence that their Constitutional rights can be redeemed in Court.” I have been running from Court, to State Attorney, to Sheriff, back to State Attorney only to have the door slammed in my face. I sought the Law and the Law run. I can’t give away a $100,000 dollar crime here in South Dakota. How, I ask Judge Garland, is an ordinary citizen to redeem his rights if the redeemers keep slamming their doors in my face. And I do not have a billion dollars to join the legal arms race, if that’s what it now takes to redeem my Constitutional voucher. Where, I ask Judge Garland, is this place where the plebs may redeem their Constitutional vouchers? Because, I sought the Law and the Law run. “A black person had no rights,” says Judge Taney, “which a white person is bound to respect.” Slaves at least had standing as property. I seem to have even less than that. I could show up at the Sheriff’s and State Attorney’s offices dragging ten dead bodies holding a nuclear device and I would be summarily dismissed as a non-person. For eight years I have been telling the police that they were being used as a rich man’s personal militia to terrorize a poor shepherd--summarily ignored. I go from State Attorney to Sheriff, back to State Attorney, trying to unload another $100,000 crime--summarily ignored. They have what they need to hang me. This (over eight years now) has never been about crime.
This warrant would never have seen the light of day were it not for “the personal,” the “intentional” and “refusal to leave.” The police cam will reveal that policeman Pike knew nothing of this. He honed in on my not having gotten re-permission after Intermil’s death several months before. But, until he died, Intermill needed permission to drain into my land which I gladly gave. And the lies were added because no judge would have signed off on such a criminal and reckless piece of legal depravity. To wit:
Policeman Pike knows that this is an industrial park which the whole town uses everyday like a truckstop. I have trespassed, along with the rest of the town, for twenty five years.
Policeman Pike knows that I planted those trees twenty five years ago when the city of Volga owned the property, that the town sold the land on which the trees were without telling anyone where the property line is.
Policeman Pike could see that no one in the trailer park knows where the property line is. The rest of the trailer park is even further back than where I thinned those trees that I planted. In twenty five years I have never seen a “No Trespass” sign. Those are maple trees that I pulled out of my driveway cracks and planted thick as hair back there. Even after thinning, they are still too close. Besides, all those trees will now be dozed away to make a straight line.
Policeman Pike could see that the 20’ x 16’, two story woodshop that I built (and moved from) on the trespassed ground 25 years ago when city owned the land extended even further than the shrubs that I planted and thinned for 25 years. I worked in that trespassed workshop for 25 years. Did the city sell my workshop when they sold the property under it? But policeman Pike did not stray from his list of crimes he was sent to find.
Policeman Pike knows that such a large building (taxed on trespassed ground) was taxed by the government. So the government is now charging me with a crime that it facilitated and profited from. But policeman Pike was too busy checking boxes on his list.
Policeman Pike could see that all the rest of the neighbors were even further into the trespassed property (we cleaned it out long ago) than my sheds and trees were. They use it for recreation and if they did not cut the grass it would be populated with the trees that spring up everywhere. But policeman Pike was too busy checking off select crimes on his “to find” list to investigate crime.
4. In Sum: This Brief shall constitute a declaration
That the Court now knows that every aspect of the items detailed in the Warrant pertain to two people.
That the Sheriff and State Attorneys have known that there were two people since June 29, 2021. They have withheld this evidence from the court.
That the State Attorneys know that the “refusal to vacate,” the “personal” and “intentional” evidence which they now ask the Court to shred is entirely false. They are shielding the false witnesses.
That the Sheriff and State Attorney have allowed this criminally generated warrant to exercise a potential lethal and debilitating effect on my life, even as they have indisputable evidence that it is grounded entirely on fabricated, withheld and misleading evidence. In essence, they are covering up obstruction of justice. They have known since June 29 that they were sheriff-whispered down a rabbit hole of contrived crime, that the Warrant was criminally originated.
That the belated attempt to shred the (“personal” and “intentional”) evidence without which the warrant would never have been written is proof that the witnesses lied to the police. Add to that the fact that they withheld from the police that there were two of us throughout, and the true nature of the accusation is unmistakable: the witnesses had no intention of reporting crime. They sought to destroy a person. As the Sheriff says: “He hates you.” The Court now knows of what nature this crime is.
Jacob J. Wipf
10-12-2021