He made me laugh.
No it doesn’t make sense. But that is part of their charm. Their ideas about identity and citizenship are at the heart of their philosophy. From the early cite:
Same goes for Ontario – no still or video cameras in the courthouse without the judge’s permission. The reality, however, is that they let cell phones with photo and video functions pass through, and would deal with those only if a person tried to start shooting/filming in the courthouse or started using any function in the courtroom.
I can’t remember what the security arrangements are for traffic court. For courts that deal with criminal or civil matters in my region, the security is provided by police officers. Most courthouses have metal scanners (staffed by officers) that the public must pass through. Once inside, officers keep an eye on potential trouble makers and act when necessary. For example, when I am concerned that there will be a potentially violent person attending, one of the officers will sit with that person from the time they enter the courthouse until the time they leave. People who do not behave are warned, and if they do not comply they are asked to leave and are escorted out. If they get unruly, they are arrested. I have seen people arrested/restrained in courthouses (the two best being a wedding party getting in a brawl between the bride and groom, and a prisoner in the dock pulling out her bloody tampon and pegging the judge in the head with it), but I have never seen the officers use a weapon.
A couple of things stood out in the video for me as being very different from what I am used to. First, the security guards in the video put up with the Chihuahua in the toe shoes far longer than the security in the courts in my area would have. Around here, after being told that he could not bring the camera into the courtroom, if he continued to press the issue, he would have been escorted out of the building, for disruptions (including distracting court security) are not tolerated. Second, when the nutter’s behaviour changed from passive resistant to active resistant as he tried to push his way through, the officers up here would have cuffed him and marched him off, rather than zapping him, for arguably bodily harm was not imminent, or if it was, there was time to draw and warn him before zapping him. In other words, around my area, I would have expected a firmer response earlier on to have removed him, but if he still tried to push through, then I would have expected the arrest to be made without escalating to a zapping.
The same would happen here. I was surprised to see in the video that courthouse security was guys in suits. Likely very well armed and trained guys in suits, but guys in suits nonetheless. Hereabouts, we have uniformed sheriffs in flak vests providing courthouse security, and they come equipped with a “batbelt” of gun, handcuffs, baton, radio, and a couple of other goodies. A lot more visually intimidating than a guy in a suit.
:eek::eek::eek: Wow, what kind of charges did that bring?! Did the judge maintain composure? Holy shit, I can’t even begin to imagine how I would respond to that, but I’m pretty sure the bailiffs would have to restrain me!
The officer restrained the prisioner while the judge gave a short but sharp lecture to the prisoner, and stood the matter down. The prisoner was returned to the holding cells, and the judge adjourned to clean up (disenfect would be a better term, given the skankiness of the prisoner). When the judge returned, court continued on other matters, but that particular prisoner did not return before my matter was completed, so I do not know if a new charge was added at that time or if it was added later. Possible charges? Assault, aggravated assault, contempt. Which charges were laid, I don’t know.
You have to pay $500 for that in Vegas, why would this guy get it for free?
I still say that this brand of nutcase (I like tax avoiders myself, but the ones who argue on ludicrous legal principles) are my favorite. Way more fun then the Creationists, or Conspiracy nuts…this folks will go to jail for their beliefs.
Crazy as the Creationists are, they at least have a consistent basis for their beliefs - they base everything on the Bible.
But Free Men/Sovereign Citizens? They’re claiming that the Law of the United States gives them the power to live outside of the jurisdiction of the Law of the United States.
This is why they should have tased him twice, one for each persona.
I wonder if things would have worked out differently if someone had told him that riding a bike at night without a light is not a federal charge?
Nah.
Depends on if he’s armed with a stapler or not.
I find myself pining for a very probably non-existent video of his next visit to the courthouse. The one where he’s wearing that orange jumpsuit before the judge.
I don’t think a comic could have written the last couple lines of the video - or had the timing of the tazer any better for comedic effect than this guy did here.
I watched the short version this morning and laughed out loud - watched the full version this evening - even better.
I had thought about getting those shoes before - now I’d feel like an idiot.
I don’t know the precise legal terms, but wouldn’t the assault be a completely new case, rather than adding it to the charges she was already facing? You could hardly try her for assault in front of the judge who she had allegedly assaulted, could you? Or would all the charges, old and new, now have to be tried before a new judge?
The original charges and any contempt charge would stay before the same judge. You don’t get to pick which judge you want by nailing the one you don’t want in the head with a used tampon.
Any new criminal charges pertaining to the assault on the judge would be heard by a different judge.
Actually, on another occasion that judge and I had a discussion on the issue of whether or not a judge could hear a criminal matter in which the judge was a witness. The court planes had been shot when landing at a remote reserve. The damage was cosmetic so the inspections were made while we were at work, but we still had quite a delay waiting to take off at the end of the day while the bush along the runway was searched. I took the position that since we had a judge, court staff, crown attorney, defence attorney (me) and some police officers (who were searching for the shooter(s), then if the shooter(s) were apprehended, we should bring them up in the plane with us, hold a trial in flight, and toss them out. The judge figured it would not be appropriate to be both a victim/witness and the judge at the same time. (Of course this discussion was in jest. The officers gave up the search, but had they found the shooter(s), they would not have been put on our planes.)
Thanks for the info. I like to keep up with my crazies, but this freemen/sovereign citizens thing is something I somehow missed.
It took me a while to find it — I’d forgotten the exact title — but this is an interesting (to me, at least) insight into the sovereignty mindset. Its starting point is a 1940 law which ostensibly made it possible for states to collect taxes on income earned on federal property within their borders, but which actually made sovereign individuals property of the federal government the moment something landed in their mailboxes. From there it goes into the meanings of the gold fringe on the flag (there are several, depending on whom you’re talking to), and of course that old standby, why you don’t have to pay income or SS taxes.
Should your legal career not work out, you have a bright future in the lucrative world of professional .sig writing.
Were I the defendant in such a case, the dual role of the judge would be less of a concern than that before matters even started, the only person on my side was already planning to chuck me out of an airplane.
Did the American flag in the courtroom have a fringe on it? For some reason the fringe or lack of one is a major obsession with these freemen whackadoodles.
I understand it’s part of their idea that normal US law is “Admiralty law”. After a bit of googling I got this from Wikipedia (it’s about tax protestor conspiracy theories, but they seem to be part of the same movement):