NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — During a hearing at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach on Wednesday, Jan. 28, the accused, who is representing himself, raised a previously filed complaint against the Orange County Sheriff’s Department alleging misconduct related to the handling of video evidence in a matter he has pursued for approximately six years. He further alleges that deputies acted in a racially discriminatory manner and that the handling of the evidence violated his right to due process. The matter was heard before Judge William S. Zidbeck.
The accused has contested the cases following two arrests. The first involved a citation issued on Aug. 31, 2020, for resisting a public or peace officer, to which he entered a not guilty plea on Feb. 1, 2023. The second involved a misdemeanor citation issued on Sept. 21, 2023, for disturbing the peace by fighting, to which he pleaded not guilty on Jan. 17, 2024. The accused currently has four active motions pending before the court.
Judge Zidbeck asked the accused what he was requesting from the court. The accused responded that several motions were currently before the court in preparation for pretrial, including a motion alleging discrimination.
The accused further alleged misconduct by sheriff’s deputies, prosecutors and the trial judge, claiming that video evidence he considers material to his case was not released. He stated, “I filed against the DAs and trial judge based on video materials with highlighted discrepancies.”
Judge Zidbeck responded, “I cannot rule over past trial judges and courts.”
The court informed the accused that investigators had received redacted versions of the footage.
The accused stated, “We need the witness list,” claiming that evidence had been withheld in the case. He added that there are “over 30 cases against the federal officers at the moment.”
The accused said evidence is missing, criticized the Sheriff’s Department for not identifying individuals in the video, and alleged the footage shows officers displaying racist symbols. He added, “It’s very sad that you keep a person frozen for years; I could have gone to law school during these five to six years of fighting.” He told Judge Zidbeck, “You, sir, have the power to dismiss these cases.”
Judge Zidbeck responded that he does not dismiss cases until he has heard both sides, citing his duty as a judge.
The accused said he filed an appeal on March 27, 2025, related to his arrest, but claimed that “the previous judge blocked the transcription.” He expressed frustration at having to file another motion and said he has taken the matter to the Supreme Court under five separate waivers, describing the ongoing process as “abusive.”
The accused stated that he needed time for an appeal to change venues, claiming that the district attorneys had “entered into my past” and alleging an unlawful and unfair collection of evidence against him. He added, “I want discovery for all previous cases,” asserting that the district attorneys intended to use his forms from judicial records.
Judge Zidbeck initially stated that he could not review the formal complaint. The court noted that the accused was referring to Evidence Code Section 1101 regarding his criminal history and explained that using evidence from past cases is not relevant to the current matter.
The accused said he believes the proceedings have been unfair due to his criminal history. He added that he wishes to take similar action against the district attorneys and noted that he has made roughly 40 appearances in connection with the lawsuit.
Judge Zidbeck paused the proceedings briefly to allow the accused to collect his thoughts. He then asked the accused to clarify exactly what he was requesting and what evidence he believed was missing.
The accused requested two separate hearings, asking that evidence be sent to different judges to reduce potential claims of discrimination. He also stated that he could not review the alleged video evidence on his Apple laptop because it requires a PC. Judge Zidbeck denied the request, explaining that all evidence must be submitted together.
An attorney waiting on the sidelines directed a remark at the accused, prompting a brief verbal exchange before the accused proceeded with his closing statement.
The accused concluded his arguments by stating, “This is America under the free Constitution,” and requested that all charges against him be dropped. Judge Zidbeck set an extended trial date in April and referred the motion to Department 3, leaving the resolution of the case and the accused’s longstanding complaints pending.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
