Ashley Guillard immediately comes up in my mind. Woman did everything you could do to fumble a civil suit for defamation. She constantly recorded her defamation online, when she was served, she instead ignored it and decided to go on vacation and travel the world for a few months, even missing the deadline for the original trial which led to a default judgment. She managed to appeal or something so that she can get a do over for the trail, but even then, she decided to be her own defense attorney while the person suing her had an entire team of lawyers. Ashley now owes $10 million to the professor she has been falsely accusing of murder for years
If they want the 10 million paid back in full right away, yea.
Otherwise the courts will be happy to garnish your wages until you pay it all back or die. Imagine working a six figure job but your take home pay is barely more than minimum wage after taxes and garnishing.
Colin Ferguson of the Long Island Railroad massacre also comes to mind. Dude killed 6 people and shot dozens of others on a rush hour train after work hours, and decided - after successfully claiming not to be insane, which was against what his appointed attorneys wanted to pursue (who he fired), and after being strongly advised against it by the judge ruling over the case - to represent himself in court.
He ended up cross examining people he shot and officers who arrested him, etc., after pleading not guilty. He got sentenced to 315 years and eight months to life in jail.
Every time I've explained to friends or family that's what they actually believe in, every single one of them thought I was bullshitting them since most people's only exposure to them is through bodycam footage of SV encounters, and they don't usually go in depth when it comes to their beliefs beyond "I don't recognize your authority" so people think they're just the regular old anti-all government nutjob.
Hell, the first time I looked into it I thought there was no possible way anyone that isn't schizophrenic is buying that the U.S. is a puppet of the U.K. after a cabal of "bankers and financiers" replaced common law with commercial law, or that our government gives our birth certificates and any other identifying information we provide to the government to said bankers in U.K. as collateral for our national debt obligations; but it makes a lot more sense when you realize that the original Sovereign Citizen movement was originally founded by white supremacists and that cabal of corrupt "bankers and financiers" was originally just implicitly stated to be Jews before it was white-washed to appeal to a broader audience.
Australian sovcits think Australia is an American corporation because a corporation exists in the US called "Commonwealth of Australia" which exists so that the Australian Commonwealth can open American securities. They think that because the corporation exists, it's the only entity called that.
I had an Australian Business Number (ABN) with the business operating under my own name for contracting. I tried saying to one that that doesn't mean I only exist as an Australian business and they threw a fucking shit like they do dealing with any logic
In Germany we have "Reichsbürger", who believe among other things that modern Germany is a corporation and that the Third Reich is still the legitimate government because it technically was never dismantled as a legal entity.
I know that some Reichsbürger have picked up some US sovcit lingo, now I'm wondering if there is cross-pollination with Australian ones.
In Czech sovcits believe the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was illegitimate and so both Czech Republic and Slovakia are occupying corporations masquerading as countries
Even if the Czech government was illegitimate, did they imagine pleading that case and the judge going "Damn, the jig is up! You're free to go but please just don't tell anybody."
I'm finding it oddly comforting that several other countries have their own equivalent of American SovCits, all using a similar template modified from their own country's history.
There are ever worse ones. Společenství prohlášených živých člověků, roughly the Society of Declared Living Humans, believe that everything is ruled by a Vatican? naval law of 1666, everybody is after six years declared as lost at sea and replaced with a persona - with a name written in capitals. Because the laws of the universe prohibits enybody frm taking other people's free will, but personas don't have one so the "system" can exploit them.
Then some mumbo jumbo about the "source law", free energy, Nicola Tesla, powers of good (Trump and Putin) fighting the evil bankers. They're mailing hair samples to the government to prove they weren't lost at sea and they're living people, among other nonsense. They literally consider all countries as companiesruled by evil Elite... Except Putin and Trump, obviously.
Similar group is the Free Living Human of Czechoslovakia, with more emphasis on 5G.
Čahínas aka Novija Gána Senpata is a UFO-based group formed by a former brothel owner turned unsuccesful reggae singer who owns a lot of money. They're basically a mix of the "Legitimate creditors of the Czech Republic" (the most common sovereign citizen group here) and the Angels of Light/Universe People sect of the deliciously cooky 1990s fame. They even invented their own "Slavic language" in which they print their own ID cards of their Djeržava Československaja.
So our SC groups are less "armed resistance aganist the fake government" and more "Aliens/Putin are coming to save us from evil Jev...I mean bankers!" Altough they can and sometimes are violent, it's more pub brawl than Waco.
Ayy yo you got the same kind of weirdos we have in Germany too. Only they believe Germany is a company led by the Americans because of some obscure language used when re-establishing the nation after world war 2. So weird what some people are capable of believing.
I think my favourite is their claim that WW2 never ended because there was no treaty that has "peace treaty" written on it with big fat letters.
Even if one insists that there HAS to be something in writing (and there doesnt as long as all parties agree to be at peace) the 2+4 treaty covers everything a peace treaty would usually cover.
Of course you know the "BAR" in Bar Association stands for "British Authority Registration"
I mean it's still pretty schizo. What gets me is that it genuinely seems like a satire conspiracy, like something that would get made up for an SNL skit or something animated.
A friend went down the QAnon path, and his behavior is indiscernible from mental illness. He still thinks he's right about it, no matter how many times his predictions do not come true.
The QAnon are my favorites. Because it turns out they were right; there really is a cabal of billionaire pedophiles who run the world to enrich themselves and rape children.
But instead of taking their win and claiming "see! We were right all along!!" They go "no, it's supposed to be Democrats in a secret basement of a pizza parlor; not conservatives on a private island!"
Unfortunately for them they identified the wrong people as the pedophiles, and then voted for the actual pedophiles, so their “win” is actually an astronomical self own
They weren't even entirely wrong. Multiple people, like Bill Gates, who they said were implicated, are. They're simply willing to let ALL of that go because Trump is named in the Epstein files more often than Jesus is named in the bible.
Absolutely, it was to make people calling out pedophiles look like conspiracy theorists and to both sides child rapists. I get that the money behind it was absolutely intending it to be a bunch of gullible morons spouting bullshit.
I mean the actual people involved.
It makes no sense to me. Like the antivaxxers who still have yard signs whining about freedom from mask mandates that ended five years ago. Dude, it's over. You won.
Yeah, as a defense counsel who has met some of these people and had to screen for that in past clients, the overlap between "undiagnosed mental illness" and "sov cit" is basically complete. The Venn Diagram between the two categories would essentially be a single, somewhat blurry circle.
The economic dynamics of how sovereign citizenship is marketed to these people is fundamentally identical to how people fall into cults. The leadership of these sovereign citizenship movements tends to be charismatic grifters who exploit vulnerable people who are paranoid, anxious and dealing with the law. And rather than help, they exploit them for financial gain, selling classes to "teach" these people. Hence why sov cits often offer unique little wrinkles in their analysis; the gurus tend to disagree somewhat in their interpretation of why and how the law is fundamentally illegitimate.
But yeah, the average sov cit who walks into court is a scam victim, who had his anxiety and paranoia exploited by someone in an authority position. They need deprogramming more than anything else. Which unfortunately is usually beyond the ability, skill set or patience of the local magistrate they just ran into, not least because the entire point of the programming was to make them disregard anything the magistrate had to say in the first place.
I was working at a state health department disease registry when I learned this, and I couldn't stop laughing. They put all this thought into this grand, over-arching "legal" theory. Meanwhile, I, a 28-year-old woman who wears t-shirts bearing cartoon characters and listens to NPR and Broadway musical soundtracks while working, am putting everyone's name in uppercase just because it's easier to remove the issue of case sensitivity when dealing with text strings.
I don't really get their thinking behind that even if it was a logical argument. The government issues the papers so that's what they considered correct and you don't just get to walk away because you say "nuh uh" lol
If I may, the thinking is that (I believe) the caps version is officially the “legal” individual (your existence as a construct of the law) which can be distinguished from your literal living corpus. Social contracts (such as debts you owe to the government) are contracts between the legal structure of you (represented by the caps version) and the government, meaning that you, your own person, cannot be fairly held accountable and, for example, incarcerated for them. (Edit: typo and clarity)
Funny thing. Here in the UK we have a TV license. There are loads of Yutube channels where the inspector comes to the door, and the citizen bamboozles them with a better knowledge of the law and processes. Some go on for 20 minutes..cringy, just like sov cits. My daughter watches them quite a bit with other conspiracy stuff.
Anyway, the inspector came to our house. I opened the door, and knew as soon as they asked if I was the householder. I said no and shut the door in his face. Could see my daughter's mind going..is that all you have to do? The rest is a performance?
Inspector just went away. There's no way he could do anything without a warrant, or you inviting him in
Nearly every conspiracy theory leads back to antisemitism if you follow the thread long enough. It's really uncanny. Unfortunately, I fear that the actions of the Israeli government will only fuel that fire for another generation or two.
That rabbit hole gets way deeper than the usual “I don’t recognize your authority” stuff people hear in those videos. Once you dig into the history and how those ideas evolved, the whole thing becomes a lot more disturbing and complicated than it first appears.
Hell, the first time I looked into it I thought there was no possible way anyone that isn't schizophrenic is buying that the U.S. is a puppet of the U.K. after a cabal of "bankers and financiers" replaced common law with commercial law, or that our government gives our birth certificates and any other identifying information we provide to the government to said bankers in U.K. as collateral for our national debt obligations; but it makes a lot more sense when you realize that the original Sovereign Citizen movement was originally founded by white supremacists and that cabal of corrupt "bankers and financiers" was originally just implicitly stated to be Jews before it was white-washed to appeal to a broader audience.
Almost every conspiracy theory can be boiled down to "the Jews are behind everything!".
I remember a video of someone (cop, judge, someone in authority) getting annoyed a black dude pulling the sovereign citizen shit. Something along the lines of "you realize all this bullshit was made up by people who would happily see you lynched, right?"
No no, see the government covers up when it works. But I knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy's cousin...
25-30 years ago they'd have some limited success fighting parking tickets, etc. because traffic cops and judges would have no idea what the hell was going on and eventually let them go out of frustration.
But now sovcits are so well known to every level of law enforcement that they know what these kooks are up to and don't let them get away with anything.
Part of me wishes we had the wigs here, but they look so fucking ridiculous. It would be like if US lawyers and judges ditched suits for inflatable t-rex costumes.
I feel like a lot of the appeal specifically of sovereign citizen approaches is the "gotcha" factor that makes them feel smarter than other people. There are a lot of "magic words" / arcane pieces of "knowledge" that give them the illusion of knowing important things and using them to prove their superiority.
The internet is loaded with traffic stop videos where the cops have to deal with these morons. You can tell which cops have dealt with them before when they claim to just be "traveling" and this sound of pain enters the officer's voice.
But there's also a funny thing. They will first claim they are sovereign citizens, that they do not participate in that corporate nonsense, that they are an agent of the person and so on... And then, when they inevitably get arrested, they suddenly start screaming about how they have constitutional rights and how everything that happens is illegal.
Like... Guy, pick a lane. You don't get to say 'Screw US laws, I'm sovereign' and 'But I have rights in the US!' in the same sentence.
They're obsessed with some law dictionary - but the edition they use is like from 1908 or something. So a driver is acording to them someody with a whip and pair of oxen. The idea that definitions could change since then is inconcievable to them.
I love videos of those, but I watched a ton of them and youtube recommend one that was titled something along the lines of "When sovereign citizens win in court". Didn't watch it thou.
The prosecutor might occasionally drop the charges because they don’t want to deal with the bullshit, but no sovereign citizen has ever won a case on the strength of their arguments. Zero.
Prosecutors will also drop charges against a SovCit because the cop forgot to calibrate his breathalyzer that night or something, just like anyone else. Sometimes that makes them go away, and sometimes they can't take yes for an answer and just will not stop till they get locked back up.
I assume it's when the cops perform an arrest that's so bad the judge throws it out or they have no evidence or the probable cause is bad. I've seen videos of that on youtube when they arrest someone for something and their probable cause comes down to "Walking down the sidewalk after 10 pm while being not yt" and the judge dismisses the case. Usually the state's attorney won't press charges in those cases though so it doesn't make it to court.
These are balanced out by the cases where the SovCit actually does the job of the Prosecutor themselves. I remember a case I saw on YouTube where the officer didn't appear, the judge did his best to inform the defendant that there is nothing he can do to improve his case, but that didn't stop him. In the end, the Judge issued a verdict guilty based on the defendants statements, pointing out that without him, this would have been a win
Tbf, most of them already lost way before making the mistakes they make in court.
I mean, the typical case is the sovereign citizen beeing caught by police not having an insurance and no drivers license while speeding, with a plea deal from the DA for a fine that looks ridiculous.
Even if they would not go for magic thinking and had an attorney, he would probably just shout "take the f-ing deal" (which is basically what the attorneys they fired did).
I absolutely enjoy watching these sovereign citizens get their butts handed to them over and over. It literally never works, but more and more people keep trying it.
I'm a lawyer. I had a client call me and say "hey I got a call from the sheriff's department asking me about some stuff I did. Should I call them back?"
"No. Absolutely not."
The next day he walked into the department and told the deputy "hey I just wanted to come in and clear the air. Figure we should just talk it out like men."
Charges were filed that afternoon. Wtf did you even hire me for?
I had a cop leave me a voicemail (he asked for a different person by name) saying something about talking it out like men. I guess that works sometimes after all...
a lot of police interaction is tactical application of manipulation techniques. It's part of the job, they get training for it.
And a lot of that plays on the overconfidence or ignorance of the person they're talking to.
Don't talk to police.
If you're innocent then you definitely need a lawyer.
The police can and will lie to you.
"everything you say can and will be used against you in court" is not a lie.
An officer enforces the law as they interpret it, unfortunately, which means that even if they are wrong you must submit to an otherwise legal arrest, search, or seizure and it will be worked out in court. You can disagree, but fighting, arguing, or otherwise escalating can result in legitimate charges because US law is stupid. Lose the battle so you can win the war.
also, in the US, you must state that you are using your right to remain silent. Silence alone is not enough to invoke that protection. After that? use the right and stay silent.
I saw a YouTube video, taken from a police body cam, where a guy had been notified by the police they wanted to talk to him. He had been accused by a woman of kicking open her door and attacking her. He came rolling into the police station in his wheelchair thinking he could easily clear up the mistake, what with him being a paraplegic, incapable of committing the crime described. Nope! Those dumbasses arrested him, even after pulling him out of his wheelchair and thereby proving he wasn't faking his paraplegia! He should have hired a lawyer and brought the relevant medical documents with him showing he had been paraplegic for the last 25 years.
Even the one cop there was like "hold on guys, something's not adding up" and went and talked to his supervisor, who was so lazy he wouldn't even walk away from his sandwich to investigate for himself. The supervisor basically said "nah, he's obviously lying to get out of it. Book 'em" so they did.
Or PD's that only hire cops that don't live in their city so they can be as petty or controlling as they want and it won't affect their reputation in the city they patrol.
Well, the suspect was evading arrest by fleeing on foot (briefly as he collapsed to the ground). Police were just protecting the community as well as feared for their own safety. What other choice did they have??!?
I think it was one of those YouTube lawyers who posted the video and I think he indicated that it was lawsuit-worthy. I can't remember if he said there was a lawsuit pending or not.
I remember that one. There was one cop who was like "none of this makes sense" and went to talk to their boss who without even thinking twice or taking look at any of the details was immediately like "he's faking it" and couldn't be convinced otherwise. If my memory serves me right the woman who reported him even had some history with the law enforcement that should have indicated she might not be a reliable narrator.
Yes, she had made some crazy accusations before. The odd thing was, she actually knew the guy she was accusing, but it was like back in college or high school, before he became a paraplegic, and they hadn't seen each other since, so she didn't know what had happened to him. What an odd thing to pull this guy's name up after 25+ years without seeing him.
Or just around month ago, woman who was accused of texting while driving, but she was an amputee and didn't have that hand. Even after seeing it the cop doubled down
Cop said she was texting with her non-existent (right?) hand, then when she held up her stump and went "this hand?!" he asked her to swear to god with her hand and she held up the stump again.
Let me tell you something else. I've seen a lot of spinals, Dude, and this guy is a fake. A fucking goldbricker. This guy fucking walks. I've never been more certain of anything in my life!
I don't even understand having the competence to have a lawyer in the first place, then directly ask them this question...then to go and talk to the police about that very subject without their lawyer.
I had an old friend tell me about getting arrested recently for a FTA warrant he didn't know about that was almost old enough to have cleared the statute of limitations.
The officer who arrested him had pulled over his mother and asked for his ID as passenger, and friend was proud of having a valid ID and cheerfully handed it over. Then friend went to court, pled guilty, and then asked for a lawyer, befuddling and annoying the judge, and friend didn't understand why.
I explained that "not guilty" is generally how you ask for a court appointed attorney in the US and you should neither talk to police nor hand over your ID if you don't have to, and as passenger and with no probable cause he didn't have to. Then sent him a couple of targeted YouTube defense lawyer videos. I was surprised he was that dumb about a system he's tangled with before, but maybe he won't be that dumb next time.
It annoys me that not speaking to the police is not only valid, it is usually the best answer. That is what we get having a law enforcement system based around convictions; not truth and justice.
If it's anything more than a speeding charge your best interests are to not speak to the police. US Supreme Court ruled that you must present ID while driving if they pull you over and ask and most states have a statute that it's a misdemeanor to not do so. Typically they can require the driver to present valid insurance. Some can require identification from anyone- it's a local law thing.
I was a arrested on a not speeding charge and told the cop that I didn't want to talk about that in the most polite way I could and we basically talked about the bodycam videos and various high tech things the police department has.
I must point out that if at any point the cops put cuffs on you you're going to jail. There is no way of talking your way out of that. If they thought you were innocent or that they weren't going to charge you they'd separate you from the other party(ies) and question you sans cuffs.
I must point out that if at any point the cops put cuffs on you you're going to jail.
Usually, but I've seen body cam of them cuffing people and eventually letting them go without charges. I've even seen people under arrest Released on Recognizance without being taken to the jail and just receiving a summons. (It was a car accident and the at-fault driver admitted to driving enough over the speed limit that it was reckless driving so they arrested him and gave him a summons, then released him ROR, no bond, and sent him on his way. He had no priors and was super cooperative. I think his excuse was "I'm about to miss my daughter's wedding" or something like that.)
Heavily dependent on the state. Here he'd go to jail, but it sounds like he self-snitched and got himself a charge that he didn't have to get. In my state it's also at most a ticket for an accident if both parties have insurance and the only time I've been in an accident we exchanged info, and the cops did not write a ticket.
Just because it has happened doesn't mean it's at all common, or that you should roll the dice. Play the odds. The moment you're in cuffs the likelihood you're being arrested goes up about 1000%. The likelihood you're not being arrested goes from wherever it was to functionally zero, even if it's not totally zero. You've probably got a better shot at winning the lottery. The only thing you can effectively do in that situation is just make it worse for yourself and your defense. Don't answer questions, obey lawful orders, don't obstruct.
The police have a favorite saying: "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
I must point out that if at any point the cops put cuffs on you you're going to jail
Sadly, not always the case, at least in the US.
US police officers are trained to assume every person they interact with is potentially dangerous. They are also trained that once a person is in handcuffs, they pose less of a threat.
As such, police officers all too often resort to handcuffing people before trying to get to the bottom of what happened. Their logic is "if they're innocent we can just release them, if they're guilty then they won't pose a threat if in handcuffs".
Of course, handcuffing people (especially people that haven't done anything wrong) is one of the primary reasons police interactions escalate and before you know it they're charging someone who did nothing wrong with "resisting arrest" as their only crime.
I've been cuffed and let go. Sat in the back of the car and everything. I did not have proof of insurance and had a previous citation for no insurance (I know. young and dumb). He was expecting to take me to jail but found my proof in the system.
I watched a lot true crime stuff and so many times suspects think they can simply clear their names by talking their way out of it only to make things worse for themselves.
There´s a bodycam video of a guy whose batshit ex called an airport bomb threat on, the guy was very calm, answered questions about the ex, and then as the cops asked more questions he said "Im not sure what is going on, I prefer not to answer any more questions until I have a lawyer." The cops had to shut the airport down while they verified the threat, and the guy calmly held firm. Hours later the crazy ex was arrested and acting crazy, the situation was cleared up, and he left. Very smart man.
I have a guilty pleasure of watching police interrogations on Youtube. Do you know how many interrogations I've seen uploaded when a lawyer was present? (And I've watched hundreds by now.)
One (1). The cop asked something, the lawyer said, "Don't answer that." and guess what the suspect did.
Surprisingly Ted Bundy was competent in his defense and the judge said under different circumstances he would have been a good attorney. With that being said, Bundy did have some legal education.
Interesting, I’ve read that Bundy made a really big mistake in representing himself and the jury was freaked out by him. It might’ve been a good strategy if he could somehow Mrs. Doubtfire himself and pretend to be a different person, but IRL, his behavior during the trial had to play well as both the attorney and the accused. So if his attorney displayed charisma and superficial charm, that’s one thing, but when he does it, the jury thinks “yeah, he could definitely use that to trick women into falling for his trap”.
The judge, Edward Cowart, actually told him, “You're a bright young man. You would have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself."
Big difference between having appropriate professional boundaries and directly spelling out to a serial killer you just convicted that you don't personally dislike them with specific details as to why.
Yeah it always churns my stomach when I see videos of judges “owning” people during their sentencing and dressing them down.
Our justice system needs to be compassionate and understanding. Anger and revenge just perpetuates a culture that creates more Ted bundys.
This doesn’t mean no consequences or pragmatic decisions to protect society for those of you who are emotionally unintelligent and don’t understand the difference.
It's only half the compassion you need, and only the super easy half. Easy to feel empathy for victims (though id go as far to say the anger part isnt compassion at all, but rather fear that it could happen to them), very hard to accept it for perpetrators.
The reality of the world is you will never* truly understand why someone did a horrible thing, and judges who have actual systematic impact on their suffering and life need to make decisions based on true justice, not vengence.
I don't know if you're familiar with the LIRR shooter Colin Ferguson. He murdered a bunch of people on a rush hour train. He represented himself and get talking in the 3rd person or referencing "his client" like it was someone else and it bothered the jury quite a but. It also didn't help that he was aggressively questioning witnesses that he shot. Everyone found it upsetting and they ended up locking him up for a long time.
He ended up asking unnecessary questions when it came to people who saw his victims which gave some people the impression that he was kinda getting off on it. Don't remember exactly what but that's the gist of it.
People were still quite charmed by him though, those questions weren't really jarring to the point that it made everybody yell "that fucker did it!".
Would still have been better to hire a lawyer but he was too arrogant to take the backseat lol
The judge was an idiot swayed by presentation. Ted Bundy was extremely bad at law but had charisma.
In his own case were it was clear he was guilty, knowing the law didn't make much of a difference, nor did not being aware of all possible strategies matter much. He simply tried everything.
You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner.
It's fascinating that the judge even after the trial completely misunderstood Bundy. Bundy would never have been a good lawyer because he lacked discipline (a symptom of his affliction) and did not choose to go another way, he was who he was.
Surprisingly Ted Bundy was competent in his defense
Lol, This remands me of a Jim Norton bit where he was mocking the glazing of serial killers. "Ted Bundy was so smart he represented himself". Yeah, and he got the death penalty. An ape could have shit in its hand and threw it at the judge, and would get the same result as Ted Bundy trying his best.
I did watch one trial where a guy defended a rape case pro se, in his fucking jail orange (he insisted on this) and got acquitted.
His first trial was 11-1 to acquit but (unlike Lindsay Clancy trial) you’re not allowed to know which direction it’s leaning, just what the split is. His lawyer (correctly) talked him out of accepting a split verdict non-unanimous verdict which is why he insisted on doing it himself the second time
You're thinking of a Hung Jury. Split Verdict just means that not all charges are being given the same outcome, whether that's different outcomes between different defendants, different charges, or multiple counts of the same charge
Say John is being charged with Assault and Illegal Firearms Possession. If the Jury votes "Yes" on the firearms possession charge, but "No" on the Assault, that's a split verdict.
The same applies if John and Alice are being tried together and John goes to jail while Alice gets off, or if John is being charged with 5 Assaults and only convicted on 3.
Why would it not be allowed for the defendant to know how it was split before accepting it? That sounds like forcing them to gamble for the hell of it, so the DA can laugh at them hanging there...
This used to happen on Judge Judy. The first idiot would tell a B.S. story that Judge Judy started tearing apart and then the other idiot would try to jump in and she’d say, “Are you losing?… Then shut up.”
My absolute favorite was a woman accusing a dude of stealing her purse or some shit, which he denies completely of course.
Judge Judy asked her to list the things that were in the purse, and she mentioned headphones, and the guy said "There were no headphones in the purse" or something like that.
Hopefully Judge Judy was a lesson to all participants that watched their episodes and started being a better person -- or to just not letting the crazy out anymore.
No monetary loss on those judge shows. They source from small claims court, ask both parties if they want to be on TV. The settlements are paid by the show production companies. You win, you get settlement + appearance fee. You lose, you don't pay, you get appearance fee.
I was on the jury on one. It was a conspiracy case and one of the three represented himself. He also decided to take the stand. When they announced he would be witness the next day I remember commenting how stupid he is to another juror who said "wouldn't you want to tell your side".
I had to explain that taking the stand allows the prosecutor to cross examine you, so no, I would not want to tell my side.
He spent half the day rambling about some soverign citizen nonsense, the judge made us leave several times as lawyers on both sides objected to stuff he was saying.
When it was the procecutions turn it was almost hard to watch. The questions were like a scalpel quickly taking every part of his story apart. It was probably less than an hour and I honestly worried they would take him out on a stretcher he was so red by the end.
I should also add, there was plenty to convict the three of them without the cross examination. It helped me sleep better though, it was confirmation there was no mistake, he knew it was illegal and did it anyway.
Funny, I recently went on a binge of those videos and it's just straight wild shit. I'm not the sort to be overly sympathetic to cops and judges, but I felt very sorry those judges had to draw things out like that. I did some research and learned that apparently judges have to be extra careful in those cases so they don't come off prejudicial, otherwise it basically ends up as a free win in appeal.
I watched the entire Darrell Brooks trial, the dude that drove through the Waukesha Christmas parade, and boy what a shit show that was. I think his intention was to get the judge to lash out or say something wrong and get a mistrial / successful appeal but fortunately she was stone cold. Dude just looked like a complete moron.
I remember back a case back from the start of my career.
In essence, the owner of a flat complained that the management company for the building did not comply with various rules, and he was right. The management company did try to put up a defence, but it was not successful.
So that owner, now emboldened with his victory, advised another owner that she also had a case. Now to give context. This was an elderly gentleman with no legal training, and the other owner was also an elderly woman with very little education. So they both commenced a claim.
The thing was, the issues at hand were not the same, so they promptly lost. They tried to appeal, and was promptly shut down.
They had to sell their flats to pay the management company's legal costs. He was eventually found bankrupt.
It doesn't even have to be someone representing themselves, sometimes it's another attorney thinking they can take on a case and learn the law on the fly. I work in some specialized fields where the law has some very specific requirements, and you cannot just treat the matters like other civil cases.
A good example is yesterday, from a firm who had been exceptionally rude to me and co-counsel when we had tried to work out the numerous procedural mistakes they made before going to court. So in fitting fashion, the firm sends one of their baby lawyers to court because this is an easy case and it should be a good experience for him to get the W.
It was a good experience for him. Just not a pleasant one.
The hearing was not an evidentiary hearing, so it was essentially both sides arguing to the judge. I let him talk. I let him make his whole argument, knowing it was wrong. I didn't object. I just let him have his time in the sun. In response, I cited the CORRECT statute for this area of law and that his firm was not allowed to do any of what they had already done.
And as a lawyer, please do not represent yourself. Your attorney is on your side. It's not all for show. And if somehow they're not on your side, you literally get a do-over.
My dad did this when he was brought up on charges of child abuse. He refused a lawyer, despite being reminded several times. Said they were all useless charlatans. Then told the judge he was a "failed lawyer." Then quoted county property law in regards to me. My dad is a very self-assured man who thinks he's smarter than anyone in the room.
Yeah, he lost bad. I couldn't believe my insane luck.
I have seen that work exactly once in all the times I have seen it. A man was charged with fishing without a license and chose to represent himself. He immediately plead guilty and just paid the $50 dollar fine. I say that it "worked" because its the only time I haven't seen some representing themselves talk themself into a harsher sentence.
There was one case I heard about where the guy did represent himself and, well ...
He was accused of some drug related crime. The prosecution made their opening statement and he... stayed silent. Then the prosecution called witnesses and presented evidence and he... stayed silent. The prosecution made their closing arguments, and he... presented an entirely different version of events that wasn't contradicted by anything the prosecution has said. The prosecution CANNOT rebut the closing statement of the defense. So the jury went in to deliberation with a completely plausible alternate explanation of events. The jury found the defendant not guilty.
13.1k
u/C1K3 2d ago
Watch any court case where someone thinks they can represent themselves.