Which reminds me of one of my favorite legal quotations: “Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.
This is the essential point of the *Alford *plea.
“I didn’t do it but I believe there is a substantial likelihood of being convicted at trial and I therefore wish to plead guilty to take advantage of the prosecutor’s plea recommendation.”
When you plead “not guilty” and lose at trial (even if you’re really innocent) you tend to get treated more harshly at sentencing.
However, some judges I knew would treat you a bit harshly for entering an Alford plea, since you didn’t appear to have any remorse.
That should be the motto of the people who think the income tax is illegal.
that quotation comes up frequently in judicial decisions relating to tax protesters and other sovereign citizen types. 
I’ll bet you’ve got a flag with a gold fringe in your courtroom, don’t you?
[looks sideways at Elendil’s Heir - it’s all starting to come together now…]
Also, the case documents probably show the defendant’s name in ALL CAPS — therefore the state has the wrong man entirely.
Why, yes. Yes, I do.
:: slowly reaches towards the button to summon my jack-booted thugs… ::
I think I’m missing something. Does gold fringe invalidate a court in some way?
Not at all, no. But some lunatics have famously tried to invoke it as grounds for having their cases ruled in their favor. I found one example here. There are probably others.
The issue before the Court is whether action taken by a state court during a child custody hearing while the court’s flag is adorned with gold fringe idly hanging or a gold eagle vigilantly peering atop the flagpole somehow violates a litigant’s rights under United States Constitution, and whether the Defendants, various child welfare workers, the state child welfare agency, the adverse litigant’s counsel and his law firm, are liable for sitting mute without protest or action to cure. Before issuing its ruling, the Court must disclose that its courtroom and chambers each sport an American flag with gold fringe and a gold eagle atop the respective flagpoles. The Court declines to recuse itself, however, for reasons that become obvious below. Other Courts have considered Mr. McCann’s argument or arguments similar in nature or effect. Those courts have labeled the position as “frivolous”, “totally frivolous”, “preposterous”, and “a … really unintelligible assertion”. This Court agrees.
[…] Nor are the fringe or the eagle of any legal significance. Even were Mr. McCann to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole eagle converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime war flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction to take his child away from him. Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman.
NOW it’s starting to make some sense. I was guessing that the gold fringe was an in-joke reference to some movie that I didn’t see…
So Elendil’s Heir gets the powers of a ship’s captain in time of war if he displays a flag with a gold fringe in his courtroom? Good – that means he can issue summary captain’s mast judgments against the loons that believe this sort of stuff! 
A short, earlier thread on the issue: Borders/Trim on US flag-Change in Jurisdicition? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
So,
If they accuse you of robbing a bank with a partner and you didnt do it or did it solo do you plead Nolo Compadre?
Hey, Peter tried that, at Gethsemane.
Nolo compadre. I don’t know Him.
He was condemned, but it was turned over on appeal.
Tris
I see what you did there.