Yah think? 
Perhaps it was an admiralty court. I’ve heard that they don’t always have jurisdiction…
Thanks for the insight. I mean, I have been aware of the sovereign citizen lunacy, but I was surprised when the judge let him walk away without repercussions (in the first video)
It is really odd to see these guys try and make their arguments. The logic just isn’t… there. I’ve always wanted to ask them: OK, if the state doesn’t have power over those who know the “tricks,” what would we do about rapists, theives, and murderers? Do they get to walk free? And if your answer is “posse of the people,” what happens when said person flees to a state 1200 miles away?
Anyone know what the stock answer is?
The defendant wasn’t in custody at that point, I don’t think. He probably didn’t even necessarily have to be there for what appears to have been a minor procedural hearing.
If before he walked out he had been held in contempt and LEO’s had attempted to arrest him it would be different but that hadn’t happened yet.
The rules around when the State is entitled to hinder your liberty are (quite rightly) very strict and the guy just hadn’t reached that point yet, I think. So while he seems to have concluded that his walkout was some sort of triumphant “victory” it was a victory over nothing.
Ah hA! You “think” you’ve got me, but I know that “Thinking” requires you to subject yourself to the “Thin-King”! There’s no way a Fat Man on the Land will ever submit to the “Thin-king”!
And yeah, that’s exactly what they sound like most of the time.
On a serious note, they usually fall back on some notion of “doing no harm”. The notion is that the only real crimes are those that have an actual victim, who is actually harmed by the actions of the criminal. So murderers and rapists would still be subject to prosecution.
Where they fall down is in the notion of potential victims. The classic example is in drunk driving. They argue that, until you actually run into and injure or kill someone, that DUI offenses are illegal. They usually take a mulligan on “attempted murder” and the like.
Wasn’t he acting as his own attorney? In that case, he’d have to be present, surely?
I don’t know enough about criminal procedure to say for sure, but certainly around here not turning up to a minor pre-trial hearing is discourteous and not usually a good idea and could conceivably (in the judge’s discretion) result in the issue of a warrant, but as a matter of practice if not strict law isn’t likely to attract any sanction.
He evidently didn’t learn his lesson. From a few months ago:
http://montana.redoubtnews.com/2016/09/01/montanas-natural-man-back-court/
And just a few days ago:
“When you’re in a hole stop digging” is wisdom these clowns seem strangely immune to.
That’s because they don’t think they are in a hole. They think they have found magic incantations that allow them to soar above the ground. I wonder how many instances of hitting the ground with a thump it will take before they realise the incantations don’t work; they may never, I suppose.
Like kids and stoves, I suspect each one needs to learn for him/herself. Profiting from others’ experience just isn’t in their nature.
I liken them more to kids hiding under blankets, supremely confident in the rule that says the night monsters can’t get them because… blankets.
But not “have to be present” in the sense that he could be arrested and held against his will for trying to leave.
I’m fairly sure that if, during a hearing, one of the lawyers tries to leave the room, he will not be arrested on a criminal charge.