Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Violence in court - by judge upon pro se defendant - judge pleads guilty later

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Violence in court - by judge upon pro se defendant - judge pleads guilty later

    That's when Nalley [judge] ordered the deputy to activate the cuff, giving him [defendant] a five-second shock that caused him to fall to the ground in pain.....

    ....Federal prosecutors say Robert C. Nalley of La Plata, a former county circuit court judge, pleaded guilty to one count of deprivation of rights under color of law.


    http://www.wbal.com/article/140444/3...endants-rights ^^^

    Judge zaps a defendant just for making legal argument .... a pro se defendant.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

    See the violence inherent in the system ^^ LOL (Holy Grail snip)

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    I think it's time to play a game of hangman......

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I think it's time to play a game of hangman......
    Think he has already hanged himself.

    Looking forward to the expected civil trial.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Back in my days of youth .. I would do the same thing that the defendant did in this instance .. argue and re-argue even when a judge told me to stop. Its a sign of inexperience ... not of contempt.

    Judges are supposed to give some latitude to pro se litigants. The judge should have interrupted him and explain that he made his point and to move on and if not, give him a warning, and then tell him he is done if he ignores his warning. It does not even merit contempt when a guy is calming arguing. Not taser the guy. The guy who pushed the button might have gotten a reprimand too by his boss.

    They say only a fool represents himself....that's me ! I do a good job for the most part. It takes experience and a willingness to know that "hey, you lost your case, dude." My last court case I lost .. I could tell that the judge was willing to re-write the law (which he did) -- when proceeding was over I told the judge's clerk "Well, that did not go so well"..he just smiled (I won my previous case a few months before in the same court). Admin appeal case. Win some, lose some...the ones that you lose when you know you were right (and of cases not worth appealing) teach ya something about our legal system. Of course we see that here in cases that clearly should have gone one way but went the opposite.

    I had a judge tell me "enough" a few times. I just say thanks .. and sometimes note, when your argument does not appear to be a winning one, ya argue some more !

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    I have never met davidmcbeth, but for those that criticize his grandiloquence I suggest you separate the wheat from the chaff. Buried between those lines of his puffed up vanity are truths in how to deal with the courts and government lackeys.

    I will tell you I've been there and have done that. Sending notices to public officials, taking officials to federal and state court, and standing up to arrogant judges and prosecutors is my standard operating procedure. Yes, as much as those naysayers challenge such tactics, there are many like me and davidmcbeth who do this on a regular basis.

    On another thread someone stated "Only fools defends themselves in court." http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2179736
    True when you are a neophyte. But, most neophyts and attorneys don't understand that there is a difference between appearing in court as yourself versus representing yourself. Once you understand the difference you will become successful in making your case.

    So, criticize all you wish, but no guts no glory.
    Last edited by color of law; 02-02-2016 at 07:16 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I have never met davidmcbeth, but for those that criticize his grandiloquence I suggest you separate the wheat from the chaff. Buried between those lines of his puffed up vanity are thuths in how to deal with the courts and government lackeys.

    I will tell you I've been there and have done that. Sending notices to public officials, taking officials to federal and state court, and standing up to arrogant judges and prosecutors is my standard operating procedure. Yes, as much as those naysayers challenge such tactics, there are many like me and davidmcbeth who do this on a regular basis.

    On another thread someone stated "Only fools defends themselves in court." http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2179736
    True when you are a neophyte. But, most neophyts and attorneys don't understand that there is a difference between appearing in court as yourself versus representing yourself. Once you understand the difference you will become successful in making your case.

    So, criticize all you wish, but no guts no glory.
    Well, that might be true... but there's this little matter of credibility. The difference is, I believe what you tell us!
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    All good fiction needs a grain of truth to be enjoyable.

    Anyway...
    That's when Nalley ordered the deputy to activate the cuff, giving him a five-second shock that caused him to fall to the ground in pain.
    And the deputy followed his order. Where is this deputy now?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I have never met davidmcbeth, but for those that criticize his grandiloquence I suggest you separate the wheat from the chaff. Buried between those lines of his puffed up vanity are thuths in how to deal with the courts and government lackeys.

    I will tell you I've been there and have done that. Sending notices to public officials, taking officials to federal and state court, and standing up to arrogant judges and prosecutors is my standard operating procedure. Yes, as much as those naysayers challenge such tactics, there are many like me and davidmcbeth who do this on a regular basis.
    <snip>.
    Good for you ... just yesterday I got an email out of the blue from my town clerk (I was in the town hall scanning some records related to a proposed project last week that would cost me $40,000 out of my pocket and $40K out of the pocket for many of my neighbors - who are not too pleased) that for scanning any records it would be $20 per visit.

    Well our FOIA Act allows for this CGS Sec. 1-212 but there are conditions before being able to begin charging scanner fees (from Act: Any individual may copy a public record through the use of a hand-held scanner. A public agency may establish a fee structure not to exceed twenty dollars for an individual to pay each time the individual copies records at the agency with a hand-held scanner.)

    So I asked to see the fee schedule (after all scanning just one piece of paper should not cost $20) and for receipts collected due to this scanner fee (courts have ruled it is not "copying or inspecting"). They had neither. They just made this up to keep me from getting records to the public in respect to this project that they want me and my neighbors to cough up 40K for.

    So IMO they cannot charge for scanning. The purpose of a fee schedule is many including making their fees public and to insure that all people are treated the same (due process / equality provisions of constitution).

    It should be fun when I go into town hall and begin scanning records. These are things I do and experience and learn on a routine basis.


    So I know what color of law goes through....people don't understand that this work can improve to lesson gov't tyranny upon our RKBA and other rights.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    This judge sounds like one I faced.
    Several years ago, I had to appear over a traffic ticket. On the back of tickets like the non-moving violation I was charged with was an area you could fill out to "avoid multiple appearances". The original date had been in August but date was reset to mid-October for "trial". The judge however, granted a continuance and I attempted to ask him "Why?". Instead of answering my question, he threatened me with a contempt citation. I replied that I was not in contempt but was merely asking for him to clarify why he was ignoring the "avoid multiple appearances" provision on the ticket. He then asked me if I wanted to go to jail.
    So I shut up.
    When the new date came up between Christmas and New Year, I showed up in front of this same reprobate - but the cop didn't. Case dismissed.
    I contacted several people in the courthouse in an attempt to find out why this judge was so combative. Nobody could/would tell me anything. I even contacted the state review board in charge of "disciplining" judges and never heard form them either.
    Several months later, I heard that this judge was moved to "family court".
    He got a promotion to scare little boys and girls in his new courtroom. That's nice.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Court Ruling Forces Police In Southern States To Reconsider Use Of Tasers

    The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unexpectedly ruled to limit how officers may use Tasers or other stun guns. In states such as Virginia and North Carolina, it's no longer legal for police to use Tasers to force compliance from a non-dangerous suspect. Some cops say this is an unnecessary and dangerous restriction. Others say it's an overdue curb on the abuse of these weapons.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465743...-use-of-tasers

    H/T John Wesley Hall http://fourthamendment.com/?p=20679
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    About the chaff, ...

    ... there is so much to read and learn and so little time. It's like judging a book by its cover, sure and a nugget might be missed, but not damn likely.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unexpectedly ruled to limit how officers may use Tasers or other stun guns. In states such as Virginia and North Carolina, it's no longer legal for police to use Tasers to force compliance from a non-dangerous suspect. Some cops say this is an unnecessary and dangerous restriction. Others say it's an overdue curb on the abuse of these weapons.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/02/05/465743...-use-of-tasers

    H/T John Wesley Hall http://fourthamendment.com/?p=20679
    Stun guns should never be used .. they are biological weapons. Want to cross that threshold? [well, we have I guess]

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Tasers have killed over 500 people in America alone, and who knows how many significant injuries. They (and I'm assuming devices like the shocking cuffs) not only can cause permanent injuries or death from their electrical effects, but much of the time the death is caused by the person hitting their head on something (including the ground) during an uncontrolled fall.

    They should be treated as devices to be used immediately before things like firearms, in situations where the option is available.

    Instead, they are treated as the "or else" in "Do what I say or else."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    They are falsely characterized as less-than-lethal.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    They are falsely characterized as less-than-lethal.
    Generally they have been reclassified/described as less-lethal, not less-than-lethal - that is a notable difference.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Generally they have been reclassified/described as less-lethal, not less-than-lethal - that is a notable difference.
    And the history of how Taser Int'l was forced to re-characterize (sic for change advertising) of its products tells the tale.

    Taser spent vast effort saying its products were not lethal. Spent vast effort saying it could not be proved such-and-such person died from use of its product.

    After the pressure became overwhelming, only then did Taser finally relent to the obvious and start characterizing its products as less-lethal instead of non-lethal.


    And, none of that addresses using tasers to force compliance. There's a reason some call these things "electro-torture devices."

    Unfamiliar readers should look up the number of times non-compliant but also not dangerous people have suffered busted teeth or head injuries from bouncing face or head off pavement or curb. Compare with the definition of justified lethal force: immediate threat of grave bodily injury or death. If a person suffers a brain injury from bouncing his head off the pavement during a tasering fall, it would meet the justification for defensive lethal force if the tasering was not completely legally justified. Which is just another way of asking, since the potential brain injury from a tasering fall meets the justification for lethal defensive force, how can the justification for the use of the taser be less than the justification for lethal force?
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-07-2016 at 04:45 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Generally they have been reclassified/described as less-lethal, not less-than-lethal - that is a notable difference.
    Of course, who made/makes this "determination" or "classification" is part of equation too.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Generally they have been reclassified/described as less-lethal, not less-than-lethal - that is a notable difference.
    ...and, a .22 is less-lethal than a .45.

    Yet, a .22 is deemed a lethal weapon...hmm...
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And the history of how Taser Int'l was forced to re-characterize (sic for change advertising) of its products tells the tale.

    Taser spent vast effort saying its products were not lethal. Spent vast effort saying it could not be proved such-and-such person died from use of its product.

    After the pressure became overwhelming, only then did Taser finally relent to the obvious and start characterizing its products as less-lethal instead of non-lethal.


    And, none of that addresses using tasers to force compliance. There's a reason some call these things "electro-torture devices."

    Unfamiliar readers should look up the number of times non-compliant but also not dangerous people have suffered busted teeth or head injuries from bouncing face or head off pavement or curb. Compare with the definition of justified lethal force: immediate threat of grave bodily injury or death. If a person suffers a brain injury from bouncing his head off the pavement during a tasering fall, it would meet the justification for defensive lethal force if the tasering was not completely legally justified. Which is just another way of asking, since the potential brain injury from a tasering fall meets the justification for lethal defensive force, how can the justification for the use of the taser be less than the justification for lethal force?
    it centers around one thing and only one thing...$$$$$ (read as corp GREED)

    marketing didn't work the first time, so it will be reworked till a 'happy' medium is established in the words which will increase sales while maintaining some semblance of PC'g to the community.

    of one thing i am sure, the nice LE better have a body bag w/them cuz if i get tass'd...prob would jerk once then dead before i hit the ground so head trauma isn't an issue either.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 02-08-2016 at 08:56 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

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