CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY CHALLENGED IN MOUNT SHASTA ARREST CASE

YREKA, CA – A preliminary hearing in Siskiyou County Superior Court has highlighted the complex intersection of local law enforcement and indigenous sovereignty claims. The case, involving an October incident at Mount Shasta City Park, continues with newly scheduled court dates.

The People of California v. Joe Emerson (Case No. 24CF12865) centers on events that occurred October 24, when Mount Shasta Police responded to reports of an unauthorized campfire in the city park. The defendant, who identifies himself as Ni’i Ne’e, asserts standing under treaty sovereignty, specifically citing the Two Row Wampum Treaty of 1612. During court proceedings, he presented arguments based on constitutional law and sovereign treaty rights.

During the preliminary hearing, defendant Ni’i Ne’e questioned Officer Casanova about the nature of his oath, specifically distinguishing between a “De’jour oath” to the Constitution and what the defendant termed a “de facto oath.” The transcript shows the defendant attempted to establish whether the officer’s authority derived from constitutional or corporate jurisdiction.

The case centers on events from October 24, when Officer John Casanova responded to reports of an unauthorized campfire. According to court testimony, the situation escalated after the defendant refused multiple requests to extinguish the fire. During the ensuing confrontation, Officer Casanova sustained a hamstring injury.

Questions of jurisdiction dominated the hearing, with the defendant presenting UN diplomatic credentials (number 13-0/32) and challenging the court’s authority under Article VI of the Constitution. Judge T.J. Linville noted these claims would require substantial documentation, including proof of treaty ratification, while maintaining state court jurisdiction for the immediate criminal proceedings.

The court found sufficient evidence to issue a holding order on two felony counts: battery on a peace officer and resisting arrest with injury. Judge Linville characterized the incident as “a misunderstanding that escalated.”

Additional procedural questions emerged during testimony, including the absence of Miranda rights, though Officer Casanova testified no interrogation occurred after the arrest. The defendant, representing himself, indicated he would enter a not guilty plea and pursue a counterclaim.

The case proceeds with several upcoming court dates:

• December 12, 2024, 8:30 AM: Settlement Conference – Trial Readiness
• January 2, 2025, 8:30 AM: Pre voir dire
• January 6, 2025, 8:30 AM: Five-day Jury Trial begins