Yes.
By far “papist” was the best single word in the whole thing. Here we are bouncing along routinely through ordinary US anti-tax, anti-democratic nutter muttering (“nuttering”?) and then suddenly “Squirrel!! Papist bonds!” and right back to municipal mundanity.
That was a classic. Thank you both for recording it for posterity and bringing it out to us today.
I’d not previously heard this form of “WASP.” Adds a not so subtle racism dog-whistle to all the anti-tax nuttery.
A really good overview of SovCits, their international existence and US history,
This is how judges should deal with sovereign citizens.
I loved that judge. Never heard a judge that had to be bleeped before, he was serious!
30 days for contempt of court. That’s a chunk of time…
It was never said what the crime was, but the judge did refer to it as a felony, so it’s more serious than the typical charges of driving without a license or no registration that SovCits face.
I do wish more judges would shut them down like that. It’s obvious that they are impervious to reason so there is no need to engage with them.
I saw one video where the judge played along and @#$&ed with the SovCit. It was pretty funny. He ended up stating he was rendering a judgment on the legal entity, real human, etc., etc., as if any of that was real. Delivered with a straight face.
The judge in Richard Marple’s case wound up leaving the courtroom after his continued rants, instead of continuing to address him directly. His conviction for driving with a suspended license was mailed to him, though the fine was ultimately suspended. Probably he was treated with kid gloves because he was a state legislator.
Pretty sure that is Judge Hurley of Broward County, Fla and David Hall the man not the person.
I looked at the court document that was shown on the screen and I believe it was firearms possession by a felon.
That’s it! 
I thought I heard something off screen on the recording about fire arms.
I like to see decisive judges dealing effectively with idjits, too, but there’s no call for profanity, as the Michigan judge resorted to. A judge ought to remain calm, cool and collected at all times, regardless of annoyance or provocation.
You can be calm, cool, collected and profane, if you want to. Not all profanity is borne of emotion - sometimes, it’s just a rhetorical tool.
Fuck yes you can.
I have actually heard a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench (as it was then known) use profanity in the courtroom. However, it was in the context of reading a statement that had been introduced into evidence. Not quite the same as the Michigan judge did.
Still, it was a bit of a shock.
And you can (nitpick) be profane AND grammatically correct.
“Fuck yes, you can”
Two clauses.
(Sorry)
It could be “Fuck, yes you can,” a sort of generic “you can do it” with a naughty intensifier at the start. This could also read as Yoda informing you the Jedi celibacy rule has been repealed.
Why isn’t it as follows?
Fuck, yes; you can.
Or:
Fuck - yes, you - can.
Which is an order given to a person who is reluctant to have sex with some Campbell’s Soup.