Benjamin Franklin Cook III is the Scientology Ponzi scammer before Reed Slatkin. He is incarcerated and awaits trial in Arizona after being indicted by a grand jury on a dizzying array of offenses relating to his masterminding a huge Ponzi scheme under the name of Dennel Financial and other entities.

Before his time as a guest of the Arizona prison systems, he was in federal custody based on collecting federal contempt charges like baseball cards.

In the last couple weeks, however, his lawyer has withdrawn from his case and he is now representing himself pro per using a freakish variety of kook legal arguments and literally indescribably nutso legal theories. He has filed a "criminal cross-complaint" against his persecutors, including the State of Arizona. Now if you have never heard of any such thing as a "criminal cross-complaint" there is a reason for that. There is no such goddamn thing except in the diseased mind of eminent legal kook Paul Alan Mitchell, who runs a web site at http://www.supermelaw.org, claiming to be the "Supreme Law Firm" and conspiring with a variety of other similar kooks.

I only happened across this because of a message on http://www.slatkinfraud.com message boards, correcting me on the fact that Cook has not been convicted yet. Mea culpa. Cook was indicted by a grand jury, but is not yet convicted, apparently because he continually insists on committing new crimes even while in prison.

The site to watch the unfolding docket is http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/newdocket/docketformmain.asp Pop in the case number, CR2000-013042 for "State of Arizona v.

Benjamin Franklin Cook" and you pop up what might look at first glance like a normal court docket and calendar.

The court calendar for his case is as follows:

08/24/2001 08:30 FOREMAN PTC PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 10/12/2001 08:30 FOREMAN STC ADVISORY CNSL: HERMAN ALCANTA STATUS CONFERENCE 12/14/2001 08:30 FOREMAN STC ADVISORY CNSL:HERMAN ALCANTAR STATUS CONFERENCE 01/14/2002 09:30 FOREMAN FTD 2 WEEKS FIRM TRIAL FIRM TRIAL That's all relatively routine, but look at what he's filed the past couple weeks:

Filing Date Description Docket Date 08/29/2001 ME: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 08/29/2001 08/27/2001 NOTICE 09/01/2001 P3 SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED CRIMINAL CROSS-COMPLAINT 08/24/2001 COMPLAINT 08/31/2001 P3 1ST AMENDED VERIFIED CRIMINAL CROSS-COMPLAINT 08/24/2001 NOTICE 08/31/2001 P3 OFFER OF PROOF/AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 08/24/2001 NOTICE 08/31/2001 P3 OFFER OF PROOF/OF OBJECTION TO WEARING BADGE OF GUILT IN THE FORM CLOTHES IN CRT 08/23/2001 NOTICE 08/30/2001 C OFFER OF PROOF/AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 08/23/2001 NOTICE 08/30/2001 C OFFER OF PROOF/AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 08/23/2001 NOTICE 08/30/2001 C OFFER OF PROOF/AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 08/23/2001 NOTICE 08/30/2001 C OFFER OF PROOF/AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 08/22/2001 PETITION 08/30/2001 P3 OF RIGHT FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIEN 08/22/2001 NOTICE 08/30/2001 P3 VERIFIED SUPPL TO THE PENDING PET OF RIGHT FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM 08/21/2001 NOTICE 08/29/2001 P3 OFFER OF PROOF CRIMINAL CROSS-COMPLAINT 08/20/2001 ME: WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 08/20/2001 08/15/2001 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 08/22/2001 P3 08/09/2001 ME: RULING 08/09/2001 08/08/2001 MOTION 08/16/2001 3811 P3 TO WITHDRAW You will note that this flood of astoundingly bizarre nonsense hit the court starting the day after his counsel withdrew, evidently astounded by the bizarre and patently frivolous activities his client.

For an example of the nut-tactic of filing a "Verified Criminal Cross-Complaint" in which the defendant apparently declares himself to be prosecuting a criminal case against the government, view eminent kook Paul Alan Mitchell's nutty series of motions doing just this to Arizona.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/azvmitch/ has a good example and here's an opening paragraph so you can appreciate the kookiness without reading the entirety of this mind-boggling drivel:

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris Citizen of Arizona state c/o general delivery at:

2509 North Campbell Avenue Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA STATE In Propria Persona Under Protest and by Special Visitation All Rights Reserved
TUCSON CITY COURT ultra vires
State of Arizona, ) Docket No. #97284647 ) Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED CRIMINAL v. ) CROSS-COMPLAINT:

) Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) First Amendment, ) Petition Clause;

Defendant. ) Fifth Amendment, ________________________________) Due Process Clause;

) Sixth Amendment, Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Assistance of Counsel;

) 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1962;

Cross-Plaintiff, ) Universal Declaration of ) Human Rights;

v. ) International Covenant on ) Civil and Political Rights, State of Arizona, ) enacted with explicit County of Pima, ) Reservations by the City of Tucson, ) United States Congress;

Larry Bahill, ) Rule 201(d), Laura Brynwood, ) Arizona Rules of Evidence;

Timothy J. Cranshaw, ) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1);

Carl R. Davison III, ) Privileges and Immunities Beverly A. Ginn, ) Clause; Supremacy Clause;

Gerard M. Guerin, ) Guarantee Clause; Thirteenth James B. Martin, ) Amendment (1819) Officer Newman [sic], ) Michael Pollard, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED F. Ann Rodriguez, ) Linda Scharbach, ) Douglas F. Smith, ) George Stoner, ) Fife Symington III, ) Grant Woods, ) and Does 1 thru 100, ) ) Cross-Defendants. ) ________________________________)
Verified Criminal Cross-Complaint:

Page 1 of 15
COMES NOW Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, Citizen of Arizona state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"), Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, and Private Attorney General (hereinafter "Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested party(s), and to demand mandatory judicial notice by all lawful judicial departments of Arizona state, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence, of this, Defendant's VERIFIED CRIMINAL CROSS-COMPLAINT, charging the following named individuals and fictitious entities, both jointly and severally, with the corresponding criminal violations enumerated infra.

Defendant hereby formally charges:
State of Arizona with:

deprivation of fundamental Rights guaranteed to Defendant by the state and federal constitutions, under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 (one or more counts), in connection with State of Arizona statutes, practices, policies, procedures, and customs which prohibit Citizens of Arizona state from electing Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, and from serving on grand or petit juries convened by the State of Arizona;

conspiracy to deprive fundamental Rights guaranteed to Defendant by the state and federal constitutions, under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 (one or more counts), in connection with State of Arizona statutes, practices, policies, procedures, and customs which prohibit Citizens of Arizona state from electing Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, and from serving on grand or petit juries convened by the State of Arizona;

racketeering across state lines, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1962, deprivation of fundamental Rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, and conspiracy to deprive fundamental Rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 (one or more counts, each), in connection with State of Arizona statutes, practices, policies, procedures, and customs by which automobile Manufacturers' Statements of Origin ("MSO") are unlawfully converted into custody of the State of Arizona, in concert with other Union States, and by which Defendant's fundamental Rights to travel and to enjoy (operate) private property are systematically infringed.

It looks, indeed, as if the Benjamin Franklin Cook III swindle case is hitting a high ebb in lunacy, and anyone who happens to be in Arizona should probably stop off and pick up some examples of what is likely to be an amazing example of some of the nuttiest legal motions you are likely ever to see.

ptsc

Go Back