I want to try and explain this… but I can’t. It defies exaplanation. It’s a bunch of defendants who try out a very, ah interesting legal defense. May they rot in jail for sheer stupidity. People like this should be kept away from normal human beings, lest they infect us with the stupid.
Well, that’s what the death penalty does - gives people nothing to lose.
Once sentenced, sure… but couldn’t someone facing the death penalty be said to have everything to lose?
In any case, if it was a “nothing to lose” attempt at suicide by judge, it appears to have backfired. So either condolences or congratulations are in order to the defendants, depending on what the hell was going through their minds.
Well that was an interesting read.
Potayto, potahto. These guys were facing federal RICO charges for first-degree murder. If the choice was between being respectful and polite and legally correct and getting a lethal injection, or being a complete jackass to the point where the authorities throw up their hands, then call me Johnny Knoxville.
I’m not sure why it’s difficult to explain. For one these people, are in all likehood not very bright and poorly educated. Besides, they were facing death penalty, so they don’t have anything to lose. So, why would it be strange that they espouse some weird legal theory that promises them a “get out of jail” card?
Yup, that was interesting.
I never get how people can think that the “You have no authority over me!” defense is going to work with people who very clearly have authority over you.
The impression I get from the article is that it can work (though the authorities don’t admit it) in the sense that you can wear out the authorities who feel compelled to explain why they have authority over you, and why some arcane challenge based on the 14th amendment (or Ohio not being a state, or something similarly nutty) is groundless. If the judge’s response was an instant “Bailiff, gag that defendant,” the trial would be faster, but the image of a gagged defendant suggests unfairness.
Anyway, five people are dead and these guys avoided the death penalty. The system works, kinda.
It reminds me of those groups who claim that having a gold fringe on the flag in a courtroom means that it’s a military court and therefore they are being tried as “prisoners of war” instead of as criminals.
“Hi there. I’ve got a big gun and these handcuffs and a large building with little rooms that have bars on the doors, which I am going to put you in so you can’t get away. Then we’re going to take you to another big building where some guys are going to argue about all the bad stuff you did. Then we’re going to kill you.”
“Nuh uh, you have no authority over me. It says so right here.”
“Oh, my bad. Have a nice day.”
Seems like it would work.
Exactly. You see how well it worked for ol’ Sadam Hussein.
Bad response management from a particular judge based on fear that there will be legal issues with the conviction because of some buggery with technical details. What it says to me is that the Justice Department (Federal or of that State) and/or the Judicial Review Board need to lay out some guidelines for how to handle defendants who make these sorts of claims.
Otherwise, it becomes a clear path to “No, it won’t get you off, but if fucks them up enough that they can’t give you the death penalty”.
What does a defendant facing life in prison have to lose by making this argument? Or any defendant? Indeed, the defendants here continued to make the argument after the death penalty was taken off the table.
Holy shit, we had a guy doing exactly that when I was a law clerk in federal court! I thought he was just crazy and made it up on his own, not crazy and had help. He kept insisting that the government had indicted “JOHN QUINCY BANKROBBER,” while he spelled his name “John Quincy Bankrobber.” When the judge would ask him if his name was John Bankrobber, he would say no and rattle off that his name was “big j little o little h little n big q little u…” and so on. He insisted that the all capital letter name they’d indicted was a “straw man,” just like the guys in the article. Guy was nuts.
Wow that is interesting.
Compared to some of the pro se petitions I have read from the ranks of the incarcerated, that claim is … well, not sane, exactly. But colorable. 
I’m not sure that’s accurate. The article glosses over the fact that there were other issues involved that may have led to the prosecutors decision. On top of that, the snag wasn’t that the prosecutors felt the need to explain why they have authority over the defendants. They felt the need to ensure that the defendants had adequate legal council, and some of their tactics took that aspect of their trial into a very grey area.
You saw that Law and Order rerun too, huh?
It’s not just people with nothing to lose who make these bizarre types of arguments. Wesley Snipes was sentenced to three years in prison for failure to file tax returns based on dubious arguments from the tax protest movement. It’s urban legends taken to court.
Oh, you’ve got to share some of your stories, Bricker.
Cecil answered another tax protest theory: Ohio wasn’t a state. I thought he did the fringed flag argument as well, but it might have been in one of the books, or else it was done by Snopes.