I’m looking for factual answers, but I guessed that GD would allow some greater breadth of discussion.
In the video below, one of those freemen on the land loons makes a scene in the courtroom, and walks out. We don’t know what happened after they drove away, but I can’t understand why the judge didn’t shut him down immediately and forcefully. Surely crap like this just encourages them?
Possibly because unlike the fictional view of a determinedly-oppressive government that the Freemen love to create for themselves, the courts often don’t really want to arrest people, particularly for fairly minor offenses and if the defendant is showing some signs of mental illness, because it’s simply not worth the effort and expense. Also, the courts feel the moral and legal obligation to let a defendant present a defense, even an obviously specious one.
Unfortunately, this kind of cost-benefit analysis and judicial kindness plays into the Freemen’s hands, who then turn around and claim their screwy legal strategies are working, plus posters to YouTube claiming that the judge was “owned” without noting that the guy was probably later arrested off camera.
It didn’t go as well for him the next time.
Many judges might not be fully aware of what they are dealing with when a whackjob like this shows up in their courtroom, especially if they are contesting the legality of a $20 fine. Subsequent events didn’t work out so well for him.
FWIW, they weren’t always as tolerant of his antics.
Didn’t watch these specific vids. Speaking in generalities …
My wife was a (low level) judge for a few years.
Most ordinary folks just want their day in court. They want to have their story heard. They’ll take their outcome, good or bad, much better if they believe they’ve been heard.
Shutting them down, stifling their ability to tell their story in their own rambling way, is counterproductive. It might “save” a few minutes now, but you’ll pay for it later in motions, appeals, compliance challenges, etc. Yes, ultimately the State will win that tussle. But it can win by being smarter or by being harsher. Smarter is easier.
Yes, absolutely, this opens door for the insane or the hard-core committed ideologue to abuse the Court’s indulgence. For awhile.
I’m curious to where the hat-wearing “freedman” got his education about the UK. I’ve never heard it called “Great Bri-TANE” before.
He may not have heard the name in conversation, but may only have read “Great Britain”, and is pronouncing it as it is written.
This is the main reason I shall never become a judge. I don’t have the near Job-like patience needed for the errrr…job.
If I was on the bench I would probably have sent down half a dozen a day for contempt.:eek:
I wasn’t a judge but I used to conduct prison hearings. And one important rule was you tried to give a defendant as much room as possible to testify. You let him talk and talk and talk if that’s what he wanted to do. Because if you shut him down and stopped him from talking, he could later claim that he was going to produce a great defense that would have proven his innocence and you prevented him from doing so. So you’re better off letting him present his defense as completely as he thinks is necessary, even if it involves a prolonged diatribe of absolute nonsense. Then when he’s done, you say “Okay, now that I’ve heard and considered what you have to say, I find it does not excuse you from the charges against you.” He may be mad that you didn’t agree with him but he can’t file an appeal based on the claim you didn’t let him present his defense.
[quote=“BeepKillBeep, post:3, topic:776485”]
It didn’t go as well for him the next time.
[/QUOTE] Someone really needs to set his rants to music by Styx.He references British law at one point and pronounces that correctly. Shouldn’t he call it Bri-teesh law?
He also doesn’t have a “signature” but instead he has a “sig-nature” and the nature of that sigil is the living person that is NEVER in all capital letters. Seems legit.
It reads like English, but I have to confess that despite grade school, high school, 5 years of college, two degrees and 26 years of legal practice, I am unable to work out what it means. Personally I’m disappointed in myself…
One of the best QB judges in my province (now retired) had a notable case with a SovCit who was tying up the court with motions. The judge did exactly what LSL Guy and Little Nemo suggest: he just let the guy talk and talk and talk. In fact, when the guy started running down, the judge prompted him a few times: “You mentioned X to me. Is there anything else you wanted to tell me about X?”
The guy gradually just ran out of stuff to talk about. It took the better part of the morning, and when he was finally out of words, the judge thanked him for his submissions and reserved judgment, and left the room. He issued his decision a few days later dismissing the guy’s application. And that was the last time the guy brought that type of application.
So yes, it’s tedious, but a big part of the judge’s job is to listen to everything the party has to say.
I think the trick is to just keep saying to yourself: “It’s all pensionable service. It’s all pensionable service. It’s all …”
Agree with NP on that. In the military the mantra was “It all counts for twenty”. Twenty years being the length of service where the pension kicks in.
What percentage of those would be parties and what percentage would be barristers?
My courtroom time as a juror or as a spectator is real limited, maybe 2 weeks total. So far I’ve avoided being a party. If I was on the bench just those few days I know at least two attorneys who’d be in jail before lunch.
Don’t even try to figure out what they really mean. These guys indulge in the “Magic Words” theory of law, in which they can make any word mean anything at all, by either re-writing it, mispronouncing it, or literally just making up whatever shit they want. There’s basically no logic to it.
Here in Canada, we had one of these guys who argued that, when the law says something “must” be done, that meant it was optional, but when it said something “may” be done, that was an obligation to act. When they’re literally switching the plain meanings of words like that, there’s no hope of understanding them.
Say 2:1 for parties. And a few Advocate cause “fuck that guy”.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
I think the trick is to just keep saying to yourself: “It’s all pensionable service. It’s all pensionable service. It’s all …”
[/QUOTE]
Yes probably. Lol
No, I just reminded myself I was getting paid by the hour.
He did manage to get himself locked up no fewer than two times over this stunt and paid an amount of fines that would have made a rational person wish they’d just paid the 20 odd bucks for a fishing license in the first place. That and his merry band of followers found themselves under increased scrutiny and William Wolf, one of Ernie’s biggest supporters discovered too late that the person selling him a fully automatic sawed off shot gun was undercover FBI.
Looks like a bunch of the links to original coverage of Mr.Tertelgte’s saga have rotted over time, here is one link that works. Here is some running commentary from the time over at a forum that kinda follows this sort of stuff.