Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: What happened in this court room video?

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    What happened in this court room video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY

    Regardless if the court had authority over to this guy or not, similar behavior would get you beat, tazed, and arrested in the USSA.
    Last edited by 77zach; 03-28-2013 at 11:03 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Samopal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northville, MI
    Posts
    66
    Can someone explain to me what I just watched? The audio was a bit hard to understand, the description makes little sense, and comments have been disabled. For all I know the judge just got sick of this guy's **** (whatever **** it may have been) and left.
    You can never be too rich, too good-looking, or too well-armed.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Samopal View Post
    Can someone explain to me what I just watched? The audio was a bit hard to understand, the description makes little sense, and comments have been disabled. For all I know the judge just got sick of this guy's **** (whatever **** it may have been) and left.
    I don't know either. I got the distinct impression that someone who has no respect for the law thinks that he used it to his advantage. We do not see what happened afterward. The judge may have realized that continuing a formal court proceeding at that moment may have been useless. He did indicate that he was coming back. If he did, and the man who also left did not return, a summary judgment may have been entered. Possibly a new warrant was issued. Any of a thousand things could have happened that the man in the video will choose not to share with us or doesn't even know happened.

    He thinks he bested the system and posted a video. In a word that the Canadians invented, "meh."

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I have seen plenty of similar videos .... I get the point ... its a standing/jurisdiction issue being discussed ...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Plenty of these Soverign Citizen/person videos on youtube.

    Google search " SOVERIGN CITIZEN/ SOVERIGN PERSON. "

    CCJ

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    31
    If more people would demand common law, we would be a lot better off..

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I got the distinct impression that someone who has no respect for the law thinks that he used it to his advantage.


    Of course you do.

    I don't think these "sovereign citizen" guys have ever actually accomplished anything in a courtroom, but that's not the same thing as having "no respect".

    Apparently, to have "respect" for the law a person must submit to its whims without question. To me, that isn't "respect", its bootlicking.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post


    Of course you do.

    I don't think these "sovereign citizen" guys have ever actually accomplished anything in a courtroom, but that's not the same thing as having "no respect".

    Apparently, to have "respect" for the law a person must submit to its whims without question. To me, that isn't "respect", its bootlicking.
    I have argued lack of jurisdiction and standing before ... been successful too. Its not disrespect ... its mandating that the gov't show that it has legal authority to hear the case.

    Happens all the time in courthouses all over the USA.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Gee... "Freeman" crap is spreading to Canada. Hmmm. Maybe they've left the country with all of their "maritime law, redemption, UCC, contract" crap.

    I don't know the law in Canada but, I'm sure there is a way to challenge jurisdiction for the usual due process issues. I bet this pony-tailed guy hasn't read any of the procedure rules for doing such. Well... make it up as you go along. Works all the time.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I have argued lack of jurisdiction and standing before ... been successful too. Its not disrespect ... its mandating that the gov't show that it has legal authority to hear the case.

    Happens all the time in courthouses all over the USA.
    Yes... and the criminal/civil rules detail how to make such arguments. It is disrespectful to the court if a motion must be made in writing and the one motioning the court decides to just shout it out.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Yes... and the criminal/civil rules detail how to make such arguments. It is disrespectful to the court if a motion must be made in writing and the one motioning the court decides to just shout it out.
    I have no issue with oral motions ... the opposing party can always ask the court to have it made into a written motion.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I have no issue with oral motions ... the opposing party can always ask the court to have it made into a written motion.
    It doesn't matter if you have no issue. In a criminal case the motion can be denied solely because it was not made according to the rules... and it's not the judges job to explain this.

    Learn the law relevant to your case.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    It doesn't matter if you have no issue. In a criminal case the motion can be denied solely because it was not made according to the rules... and it's not the judges job to explain this.

    Learn the law relevant to your case.
    Rules rules rules.......does not equal justice.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Rules rules rules.......does not equal justice.....
    Rules of procedure and the rules of the court are there to assist in justice being served. If there are specific rules that you think cause an injustice in your state then get them changed. Typically the injustice occurs when the rules are ignored.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Typically the injustice occurs when the rules are ignored.
    Evidentiary rules? OK, sure.

    Procedural rules? Pfft. They only exist to provide lawyers with a reason for being.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Evidentiary rules? OK, sure.

    Procedural rules? Pfft. They only exist to provide lawyers with a reason for being.
    "Procedural rules" covers quite a bit of teritory. Which procedural rules do you refer? Perhaps the ones covering proper process? Maybe the ones dealing with ex parte communications? I know you're not suggesting justice could be facilitated with no organized process.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    "Procedural rules" covers quite a bit of teritory. Which procedural rules do you refer? Perhaps the ones covering proper process? Maybe the ones dealing with ex parte communications? I know you're not suggesting justice could be facilitated with no organized process.
    I'm referring to the same sorts of procedural rules you are – arbitrary BS like whether a motion has to be delivered orally or in writing. I already allowed for the validity of some courtroom rules so I'm not going to play semantics with you. Use your imagination.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I'm referring to the same sorts of procedural rules you are – arbitrary BS like whether a motion has to be delivered orally or in writing. I already allowed for the validity of some courtroom rules so I'm not going to play semantics with you. Use your imagination.
    I disagree that a rule regarding the form of a particular motion is arbitrary bs in general. There are plenty of good reasons to require motions in writing. They can be considered and ruled on before a hearing. They save the court and the interested parties time as well as giving time for the opposing party to file any rebuttal. There are many more reasons.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •