Court Cam TV: The state of the Sovereign Nation

[theprestige]

Since I've started watching court cam footage, I've seen quite a few Sovereign Citizens trying to represent themselves.

This is no longer a fringe movement. People trying sovcit arguments in court is becoming a trend. Twenty years ago it was a novelty. Now it's something courts have to deal with on a regular basis. One side effect of this is that judges seem to be getting pretty good at recognizing and ignoring sovcit nonsense from the defendant.

Also, I think sovcit courtroom tactics are evolving. Here are the main tropes as I see them at this time.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The defendant tries to force the court to admit that it does not have jurisdictional authority over SovCits. Rebuttal: The judge asserts the court's authority, usually appealing to the people or the constitution of the state in which the court is located. The defendant's rhetoric is ignored and they are forced to move on.
• Absurd Discovery: The defendant tries to demand a mountain of documentation, all of which is either redundant, wildly impractical, flatly impossible, or some combination. Rebuttal: The judge often grants motions for reasonable discovery, and denies the motions for things like a signed affidavit from everyone in the government from the arresting officer up to the president of the United States. Sometimes the defendant's discovery motion is so poorly worded that the court cannot grant it as written.
• No injury, no crime: Sometimes the defendant tries to argue that without an injured person, there cannot be a crime. Rebuttal: The judge asserts that there has been a crime, and moves on.
• I am not him: A classic, but I haven't seen this as much as I expected. Probably because of the rebuttal. Rebuttal: If you're not him, you're free to leave, and I'll issue an arrest warrant so we can get him in here. I've seen this rebuttal used at least twice. It worked both times.

---

What I think is going to happen next:

I've seen pro se defendants who have their act together. They understandn court proceedings. They know how to file a well-formed motion before the court. They know how to object and what to object to. They are never Sovereign Citizens.

But SovCits could potentially be like these well-informed and prepared defendants. They could figure out how to properly file a discovery motion. How to more effectively navigate the minutiae of court rules and procedures. I think that pretty soon, a SovCit defense is going to look a lot like actual practice of law. They'll still be wrong on the points of law they raise, but they'll at least be following the court's rules.

---

What gets me is this: Legal proceedings really are complicated things, with lots of fiddly little bits and gotchas that get even even experienced attorneys from time to time. There really are Is and Ts that, if left undotted or uncrossed, will get you out of jail free.

But here's the thing: Judges and lawyers have been at this for a long time. They have collective centuries of training and institutional knowledge about how to avoid the gotchas. You'd have to get up really early in the morning, to catch the court missing a trick.

---

Anyway, yeah. My prediction is that SovCit arguments are going to look more and more like conventional lawyering over time, and that sooner or later a SovCit is going to win on the merits of their legal argument. And I think that on that day, their legal argument is going to be indistinguishable from law as it is practiced by regular citizens and their attorneys.

 

[I Am The Scum]

But SovCits could potentially be like these well-informed and prepared defendants. They could figure out how to properly file a discovery motion. How to more effectively navigate the minutiae of court rules and procedures. I think that pretty soon, a SovCit defense is going to look a lot like actual practice of law. They'll still be wrong on the points of law they raise, but they'll at least be following the court's rules.

I too have been watching a lot of court cams lately (Law Talk With Mike and TeamSkeptic are pretty good) and I think the odds of this are virtually zero. One of the foundations of the conspiracy theory is that the real law you see in court rooms is fake, and the fake law you learn on the internet is real. It's basically like your court date is on opposite day but there's still a handful of Latin words.

Incompetent obstruction is the whole point. The intelligence needed to understand how to properly file a motion far surpasses the intelligence required to realize that there are no magic words in court.

 

[bknight]

Since I've started watching court cam footage, I've seen quite a few Sovereign Citizens trying to represent themselves.

This is no longer a fringe movement. People trying sovcit arguments in court is becoming a trend. Twenty years ago it was a novelty. Now it's something courts have to deal with on a regular basis. One side effect of this is that judges seem to be getting pretty good at recognizing and ignoring sovcit nonsense from the defendant.

Also, I think sovcit courtroom tactics are evolving. Here are the main tropes as I see them at this time.

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The defendant tries to force the court to admit that it does not have jurisdictional authority over SovCits. Rebuttal: The judge asserts the court's authority, usually appealing to the people or the constitution of the state in which the court is located. The defendant's rhetoric is ignored and they are forced to move on.
• Absurd Discovery: The defendant tries to demand a mountain of documentation, all of which is either redundant, wildly impractical, flatly impossible, or some combination. Rebuttal: The judge often grants motions for reasonable discovery, and denies the motions for things like a signed affidavit from everyone in the government from the arresting officer up to the president of the United States. Sometimes the defendant's discovery motion is so poorly worded that the court cannot grant it as written.
• No injury, no crime: Sometimes the defendant tries to argue that without an injured person, there cannot be a crime. Rebuttal: The judge asserts that there has been a crime, and moves on.
• I am not him: A classic, but I haven't seen this as much as I expected. Probably because of the rebuttal. Rebuttal: If you're not him, you're free to leave, and I'll issue an arrest warrant so we can get him in here. I've seen this rebuttal used at least twice. It worked both times.

---

What I think is going to happen next:

I've seen pro se defendants who have their act together. They understandn court proceedings. They know how to file a well-formed motion before the court. They know how to object and what to object to. They are never Sovereign Citizens.

But SovCits could potentially be like these well-informed and prepared defendants. They could figure out how to properly file a discovery motion. How to more effectively navigate the minutiae of court rules and procedures. I think that pretty soon, a SovCit defense is going to look a lot like actual practice of law. They'll still be wrong on the points of law they raise, but they'll at least be following the court's rules.

---

What gets me is this: Legal proceedings really are complicated things, with lots of fiddly little bits and gotchas that get even even experienced attorneys from time to time. There really are Is and Ts that, if left undotted or uncrossed, will get you out of jail free.

But here's the thing: Judges and lawyers have been at this for a long time. They have collective centuries of training and institutional knowledge about how to avoid the gotchas. You'd have to get up really early in the morning, to catch the court missing a trick.

---

Anyway, yeah. My prediction is that SovCit arguments are going to look more and more like conventional lawyering over time, and that sooner or later a SovCit is going to win on the merits of their legal argument. And I think that on that day, their legal argument is going to be indistinguishable from law as it is practiced by regular citizens and their attorneys.

I have not watched any court proceedings but I am moved to remind those who plea this that this nation underwent a Civil War to bring the Secessionists back into the fold, It might be wise for those SovCits to remember this.

 

[novaphile]

Personally, I see the SovCit morons as a gift that keeps on giving.

Their ability to parlay a simple traffic stop and $50 fine, into an arrest, contempt of Court charge and a month in jail, is absolutely breath-taking.

I really can't see any of them becoming lawyers, or the movement morphing into an actual effective legal movement.

Learning any law, will just hammer home how stupid the entire edifice is.

It's stupid all the way down.

 

[JayUtah]

First, you should never represent yourself pro se in big-boy court unless you want to lose. The fiddly bits theprestige talks about are real and they matter. While judges in lower level courts are generally kind and accommodating to pro se litigants, everyone secretly wishes the parties were represented because everything goes so much more smoothly. That said, some courts like small claims and municipal justice courts are set up to be very friendly to self representation. If you just apply yourself and follow the instructions carefully and be nice to the clerks, you'll be fine.

Sovereign citizens are not in it for the pro se experience so much as they are on the premise that they are above the law as they believe it stands. Hiring a licensed attorney is, for them, simply buying into the broken system they think they can dispel with magic words.¹ And yes, judges and attorneys are getting so much more acquainted with the shenanigans. As I recall, there's a famous opinion on a case in Canada that goes into great detail about what is wrong with the S.C. movement and provides their judges with a lot of helpful detail about how to plow through the obfuscation.

And I know at least one practicing attorney who got into law because he started debunking S.C. stuff as a lay person and found it so satisfying that he's now a trial lawyer.

Sadly, the S.C. movement is not limited to courtroom antics. There was a very sad occurrence recently in the county north of us where a simple traffic stop turned into a hail of bullets in which the driver (a known S.C. fanatic) was killed. The body cams are really hard to watch, but this is one instance where the officers bent over backwards to de-escalate the situation and defuse the S.C. nonsense, but the driver ended up going for a gun—and this is pretty clear in the video. I don't often side with cops in hail-of-bullets situations, but this was very sad.

______________________________
¹ Sadly there is a reciprocal to the "magic words" dismissal. While real courts dismiss the notion that their jurisdiction, procedure, and verdicts can be dispelled by the utterance of mystical phrases, there is a corollary nonsense to invoking your 6th amendment right to counsel. Unless you get the words exactly right, your invocation won't be taken seriously. As if some joe arrested on the streets is going to know the precise, legally mandated language that gets the questioning to stop! There's a famous Louisiana case in which a suspect, in interrogation, said, "why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog," which was seriously interpreted by law enforcement as a request for a canine lawyer. The denial of a motion to suppress on right-to-counsel grounds was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court. So magic words are sometimes stupidly necessary in law.

 

[theprestige]

I too have been watching a lot of court cams lately (Law Talk With Mike and TeamSkeptic are pretty good) and I think the odds of this are virtually zero. One of the foundations of the conspiracy theory is that the real law you see in court rooms is fake, and the fake law you learn on the internet is real. It's basically like your court date is on opposite day but there's still a handful of Latin words.

Incompetent obstruction is the whole point. The intelligence needed to understand how to properly file a motion far surpasses the intelligence required to realize that there are no magic words in court.

What I'm trying to say is that the playbook they're working from is going to evolve to more accurately reflect actual court proceedings. I get that obstruction is the game, but I think they're going to get better at going through the motions.

Kind of like a p-zombie, but for court proceedings. A c-zombie?

 

[JayUtah]

What I'm trying to say is that the playbook they're working from is going to evolve to more accurately reflect actual court proceedings. I get that obstruction is the game, but I think they're going to get better at going through the motions.

That's an intriguing proposition. I don't disagree that's possible. But then the question is when it stops become Sovereign Citizen stuff and starts becoming just badly executed pro se representation. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about achieving a superficial level of compliance with criminal procedure, but inside that is still Sov. Cit. nonsense wrapped in a slightly more convincing package. That's the best I can do with the p-zombie suggestion.

 

[theprestige]

That's an intriguing proposition. I don't disagree that's possible. But then the question is when it stops become Sovereign Citizen stuff and starts becoming just badly executed pro se representation. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about achieving a superficial level of compliance with criminal procedure, but inside that is still Sov. Cit. nonsense wrapped in a slightly more convincing package. That's the best I can do with the p-zombie suggestion.

That's exactly what I'm saying. They'll get better at aping court proceedings, rather than just trying to derail it with nonsense. Because the judges and cops are getting faster at spotting it and better at summarily discarding it.

And yes, the question for me is indeed when does the SovCit cross the line to just a badly-informed pro se defendant with a warped worldview.

---

For example, this poor fellow who tried to motion for discovery on a bunch of nonsense. The judge was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and grant the elements of the motion that closely resembled actual discovery items.

But when the judge tried to order the prosecutor to comply with the more reasonable elements of the motion, the prosecutor replied that the law hinges on what the motion says, not what interpretation the judge makes. Therefore, he argued, he could not comply with the motion in its current form. The judge agreed, and amended her order to a denial of the motion and an admonition to the defendant to come back with a properly-worded motion if they wanted discovery.

I think that scenario is going to go away at some point. I think SovCits will continue to demand nonsensical discovery, but I think they will start showing up with a well-formed template for a motion.

 

[Mojo]

And yes, judges and attorneys are getting so much more acquainted with the shenanigans. As I recall, there's a famous opinion on a case in Canada that goes into great detail about what is wrong with the S.C. movement and provides their judges with a lot of helpful detail about how to plow through the obfuscation.

Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

 

[catsmate]

First, you should never represent yourself pro se in big-boy court unless you want to lose. The fiddly bits theprestige talks about are real and they matter. While judges in lower level courts are generally kind and accommodating to pro se litigants, everyone secretly wishes the parties were represented because everything goes so much more smoothly. That said, some courts like small claims and municipal justice courts are set up to be very friendly to self representation. If you just apply yourself and follow the instructions carefully and be nice to the clerks, you'll be fine.

Sovereign citizens are not in it for the pro se experience so much as they are on the premise that they are above the law as they believe it stands. Hiring a licensed attorney is, for them, simply buying into the broken system they think they can dispel with magic words.¹ And yes, judges and attorneys are getting so much more acquainted with the shenanigans. As I recall, there's a famous opinion on a case in Canada that goes into great detail about what is wrong with the S.C. movement and provides their judges with a lot of helpful detail about how to plow through the obfuscation.
And I know at least one practicing attorney who got into law because he started debunking S.C. stuff as a lay person and found it so satisfying that he's now a trial lawyer.

Sadly, the S.C. movement is not limited to courtroom antics. There was a very sad occurrence recently in the county north of us where a simple traffic stop turned into a hail of bullets in which the driver (a known S.C. fanatic) was killed. The body cams are really hard to watch, but this is one instance where the officers bent over backwards to de-escalate the situation and defuse the S.C. nonsense, but the driver ended up going for a gun—and this is pretty clear in the video. I don't often side with cops in hail-of-bullets situations, but this was very sad.

______________________________
¹ Sadly there is a reciprocal to the "magic words" dismissal. While real courts dismiss the notion that their jurisdiction, procedure, and verdicts can be dispelled by the utterance of mystical phrases, there is a corollary nonsense to invoking your 6th amendment right to counsel. Unless you get the words exactly right, your invocation won't be taken seriously. As if some joe arrested on the streets is going to know the precise, legally mandated language that gets the questioning to stop! There's a famous Louisiana case in which a suspect, in interrogation, said, "why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog," which was seriously interpreted by law enforcement as a request for a canine lawyer. The denial of a motion to suppress on right-to-counsel grounds was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court. So magic words are sometimes stupidly necessary in law.

Meads v Meads (link, beware it's 176 rather fascinating pages). Extensively cited (including here in Ireland) and written about in journals.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

I was just going to post the Meads link, but beaten to it. By a complete coincidence, my YouTube feed has been bringing those SovCit arguments up, and I wanted to understand where they got their ideas from.

The Meads link is thorough and extremely comprehensive in explaining what is going on.

The main takeaway is that all the weird wording, ritualistic responses and strange ideas are not designed to influence the court at all, and that's why they don't actually work.

They are actually designed to impress the mark, the poor saps who are being sold this rubbish as an effective defence by 'gurus'. They are looking for a series of magic words that will somehow grant them extraordinary powers. When it fails, as it inevitably does, its because they didnt use the right combination of magic words.

I don't see them getting any better at it, because none of their ideas are based in law, and the whole thing is actually a scam. If their gurus were capable of producing arguments that were based in law, they wouldnt be sovcit gurus, they would be lawyers.

The sovcits are looking for shortcuts, for magic spells, and that is why they turn to the scammers.

 

[malbui]

There are a few judges I like watching - Oakley and Simpson are reliably funny - but I get frustrated how some judges let the defendants take over the process. I want to see more jailing for contempt.

I quite like a lot of the SovCit arrest videos too, especially when the losers decide to play FAAFO and Mr Sparky gets invited to the party.

On a more serious note, my late aunt was a judge (and a good judge too) and she spent so much time begging pro se defendants just to talk with a qualified legal adviser - any adviser - just to ensure that they were properly represented. She was more than happy to hand down stiff sentences if they were warranted, and had quite a reputation for it, but was desperate to ensure that justice was seen to be done.

 

[JayUtah]

Meads v Meads (link, beware it's 176 rather fascinating pages).

The Meads link is thorough and extremely comprehensive in explaining what is going on.

Thanks, that's obviously exactly what I was referring to. Here, as noted, the length is a virtue insofar as the decision is comprehensive, thorough, and expressly intended to instruct other jurists. While it functions as an opinion in an actual case, it's obviously meant also to be a textbook, perhaps more so than other opinions.

The main takeaway is that all the weird wording, ritualistic responses and strange ideas are not designed to influence the court at all, and that's why they don't actually work.

They are actually designed to impress the mark, the poor saps who are being sold this rubbish as an effective defence by 'gurus'. They are looking for a series of magic words that will somehow grant them extraordinary powers. When it fails, as it inevitably does, its because they didnt use the right combination of magic words.

So not unlike get-rich-quick grifts, multilevel management grifts, and a lot of religion. "Oh, it didn't work for you? Then you obviously did it wrong." I agree.

I don't see them getting any better at it, because none of their ideas are based in law, and the whole thing is actually a scam.
* * *
The sovcits are looking for shortcuts, for magic spells, and that is why they turn to the scammers.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong. But to frame it the same way as the OP, the grift depends on the mark believing that the magic words would work if only he used them properly. If that illusion can be credibly challenged in the mark's mind by some behavior of the court, then the grift has to get more sophisticated. Maybe, maybe not.

Last weekend I got to attend a popular culture convention in which the prop "time machine" from Napoleon Dynamite was on display. Limitations of low-budget prop-building aside, what constitutes a "time machine" for purposes of fooling the mark necessarily has to improve as people in general become more generally savvy. H.G. Wells didn't go into much detail about what his machine looked like or how it worked, since it was just a contrivance to drive the plot. But in the 1990s a time machine had to look like a credible expression of technology in that era. Striking the proper balance between magic and manufacture seems important.

Similarly as the marks become generally more legally savvy (which they may or may not do), the magic words might have to adapt to become more convincing to the mark, so that the premise, "It obviously works; you just did it wrong" remains plausible. They're still magical in the sense that they contain no operative legal process, but they may seem less overtly out of place in the modern legal context.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I blame "get rich quick" books and seminars.

Psychologically, it's pretty straightforward:

1. I am not as successful or rich as the people I compare myself with
2. I think I am at least as smart and skilled as the people more successful than me
3. ergo, their success must be due to access to some secret knowledge.
4. if I had that knowledge, I would be successful, too

 

[JayUtah]

Then we should probably nod to the podcast If Books Could Kill. They tap into the phenomenon of success-seeking as advised by authors who are obvious frauds and grifters. On more than one occasion they noted that an author's secret to success was: Write a book and convince a bunch of rubes to buy it.

 

[theprestige]

I don't see them getting any better at it, because none of their ideas are based in law, and the whole thing is actually a scam. If their gurus were capable of producing arguments that were based in law, they wouldnt be sovcit gurus, they would be lawyers.

What I'm seeing in this court footage is not so much a failure of legal reasoning, as a failure to follow court rules and procedures. I see other defendants who are equally boned before the law, but are adept at playing the system to delay their trials, etc.

I'm not predicting that sovcits will get better at making legal arguments. I'm predicting they'll get better at couching their bad legal arguments in correct court procedures. Things like filing a proper motion for their nonsense discovery demands. I don't think it will get any more successful over time, but I do think it will start to look more and more like actual (amateur) lawyering at first glance.

 

[Dabop]

As I recall, there's a famous opinion on a case in Canada that goes into great detail about what is wrong with the S.C. movement and provides their judges with a lot of helpful detail about how to plow through the obfuscation.

Yes, it's from the Alberta Court of King's Bench (Queens Bench at the time obviously lol)- Meads v Meads from Chief Justice Rooke...

The summary doesn't do it justice, he REALLY ripped them a new one (but unlike the one page summary, its over 170 pages long...)
Meads v Meads Summary
ETA, ninja'd lol- at least you know we all agree on the case !!!

 

[gnome]

What I'm seeing in this court footage is not so much a failure of legal reasoning, as a failure to follow court rules and procedures. I see other defendants who are equally boned before the law, but are adept at playing the system to delay their trials, etc.

I'm not predicting that sovcits will get better at making legal arguments. I'm predicting they'll get better at couching their bad legal arguments in correct court procedures. Things like filing a proper motion for their nonsense discovery demands. I don't think it will get any more successful over time, but I do think it will start to look more and more like actual (amateur) lawyering at first glance.

I wonder if it can be likened to attempts to make a physical perpetual motion device. Each attempt fails on what seems to be a technicality, but that "technicality" arises because of the essential futility of the task, though the person believes they can get it to work if they engineer it in just the right way. So the failure of legal reasoning would sooner or later manifest as a procedural barrier, and finding a clever way around one just inevitably runs you into another.

 

[malbui]

I also quite enjoy the "I'm a Moorish citizen" or "I'm a native non-American citizen" line that a lot of them come out with to claim that laws don't apply to them. I might go on a crime spree the next time I'm in the US and argue along the same lines.

 

[JayUtah]

...a failure to follow court rules and procedures.
* * *
I'm predicting they'll get better at couching their bad legal arguments in correct court procedures.

The Darrell Brooks trial showed a SovCit litigant laboriously cross examining witnesses over voir dire, hoping to show they are biased agents of the court or some other such conspiratorial twaddle.

Witness voir dire lays the foundation for the testimony. For example, "Did you shoot this video?" properly invokes one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule when the primary evidence is the video itself. "Were you at the party?" establishes that a lay witness is in a position to give testimony from the evidence of her senses as to what happened at the party. These take at most about three pro forma questions, and then we move on.

It's perfectly legitimate (and sometimes necessary) to challenge the foundation of some particular testimony. But ordinarily there's nothing to be had in questioning pro forma voir dire, so real lawyers don't do that. Brooks, however, vigorously cross-examined the witnesses on simple voir dire statements, injecting SovCit legal theories and bizarre accusations against the witness into the cross. This led to 20-minute, objection-laden crosses that should not occur and serve only to posture the SovCit nonsense in a part of the trial where a judge is generally constrained to allow the most leeway. You're allowed to impeach the foundation of the witness, so a judge can't categorically disallow that activity. The judge has to rule on each and every inappropriate question upon objection.

 

[novaphile]

I'd like to see more Police being trained in how to handle the derp.

The best I've seen so far is:

"If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'Yes Sir' or 'No Sir', I'm arresting you for hindering a Police Officer in the course of their duties, do you understand?

"I'm not a corporation!"

"You're under arrest."

 

[zooterkin]

I'd like to see more Police being trained in how to handle the derp.

The best I've seen so far is:

"If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'Yes Sir' or 'No Sir', I'm arresting you for hindering a Police Officer in the course of their duties, do you understand?

"I'm not a corporation!"

"You're under arrest."

While I agree with the principle, since when was one required to call a police officer "sir"?

 

[PitPat]

Skimmed much of the thread. SovCit as a defense has never worked and never will.

But I will agree it's fun to watch those loonies try to argue it on court cameras.

 

[Mojo]

What I'm seeing in this court footage is not so much a failure of legal reasoning, as a failure to follow court rules and procedures.

No, it's absolutely a failure of legal reasoning. The legal theories they rely on are wrong (at best).

Ironically they often claim that their consistent failures in court are the result of them not having correctly followed their own made-up rules and procedure, not the court's actual rules and procedure.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'd like to see more Police being trained in how to handle the derp.

The best I've seen so far is:

"If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'Yes Sir' or 'No Sir', I'm arresting you for hindering a Police Officer in the course of their duties, do you understand?

"I'm not a corporation!"

"You're under arrest."

I think they're getting better, slowly, at the "take no nonsense", at least the vids I see are moving that way.
The best I've seen recently was one (DL request, ~2nd attempt) who said...
"Here's how it's going to go. I'll ask you, then I'll tell you, then I'll make you."
And he did. [emoji38]

Side note... twice now, very recent stops, I've seen them lay a spike strip down between the wheels. Nice, very smart.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it's absolutely a failure of legal reasoning. The legal theories they rely on are wrong (at best).

They are. But I read theprestige's point as saying both are wrong, but one may be improving. Procedural defects provide a court with an easy way to deflect problematic filings and activities. Usually conformance to procedure is evaluated before the merits of any filing. Once you finally get the procedure right, you may find your filing then fails on the merits. But a procedural error will mean the merits are never evaluated.

Ironically they often claim that their consistent failures in court are the result of them not having correctly followed their own made-up rules and procedure, not the court's actual rules and procedure.

Haha, indeed. Both are arcane and stupid. But only one lets the move forward on the merits.

 

[novaphile]

While I agree with the principle, since when was one required to call a police officer "sir"?

It was a USA video, I think Americans call each other Sir a lot, at least in interactions with the Police.

 

[gnome]

I think it's a way to signal an intent to handle the interaction in an orderly and respectful manner. The REALITY of it may differ, but that's the idea.

 

[PitPat]

I think it's a way to signal an intent to handle the interaction in an orderly and respectful manner. The REALITY of it may differ, but that's the idea.

I long for a day when there's no longer such thing as The Talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_talk_(racism_in_the_United_States)

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Meads v Meads (link, beware it's 176 rather fascinating pages). Extensively cited (including here in Ireland) and written about in journals.

When I was on the LPT helpline when in the Revenue, the FotLs were a live risk. One of my colleagues had the honour of spending an hour on the line with one of them each day for the best part of a week, poor woman. She then had to deal with Graham Dwyer a few weeks later.

For myself, the only contact was indirect, a Garda Sergeant rang asking for the specific provisions in law allowing for mandated payments, as an FotL had come to them making criminal allegations after having mandatory deductions at source slapped on their wages.

 

[theprestige]

No, it's absolutely a failure of legal reasoning. The legal theories they rely on are wrong (at best).

Ironically they often claim that their consistent failures in court are the result of them not having correctly followed their own made-up rules and procedure, not the court's actual rules and procedure.

As Jay says, I'm noting the distinction between legal theory and courtroom procedures. I'm saying that I think SovCits are going to get better at navigating courtroom procedures. Things like how to file a motion. Even if the legal argument in the motion is nonsense, the motion itself will be properly filed before the court.

Or Jay's example of the voir dire nonsense. At least that defendant was perpetrating that nonsense in the proper point in the process - during cross examination. Not at their arraignment. Not at their bond hearing. Not during sentencing. They perpetrated their voir dire nonsense at the exact point in the process where they're entitled to perpetrate voir dire nonsense if they so choose. I consider that an evolutionary step towards courtoom fitness, even if their legal theories are still unfit.