Fogbow

“Am I wrong?”
Pause. “You are not correct.”

I noted that recently several judges requested that sovcit defendants get a competency evaluation. But have until now not seen any resulting competency hearing (in one case the defendant did not show up at the doctor and held in contemp of court and will get the evaluation done in jail).

Question: if found incompetent, does that only mean incompetent to act pro se, of incompetent to stand trial? How can an incompetent person still be stopped from travelling driving when they ignore the ruling?

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:25 pm I noted that recently several judges requested that sovcit defendants get a competency evaluation. But have until now not seen any resulting competency hearing (in one case the defendant did not show up at the doctor and held in contemp of court and will get the evaluation done in jail).

Question: if found incompetent, does that only mean incompetent to act pro se, of incompetent to stand trial? How can an incompetent person still be stopped from travelling driving when they ignore the ruling?

IANAL, but it is my understanding that there are essentially two different competency questions. The first is whether or not the defendant is competent to stand trial at all. To be competent, the defendant must be able to understand the charges and to be able to assist counsel in their defense.

The second is whether the defendant is competent to act as his/her own attorney. I believe that this is called a Faretta hearing, in which the judge will question the defendant about their understanding of the law and explain a few basics about court procedures, one of which is that the judge is not there to guide the defendant through the gauntlet of court procedures. It is entirely possible to be competent to stand trial but not competent to appear pro se.

Even if the defendant is found incompetent to stand trial (which, of course, renders the second question moot) they are not necessarily incompetent to perform daily tasks, such as driving. However, if the person persists in driving without a license, vehicle registration or insurance, the court can impound their vehicle.

H/T @noblepa

GlimDropper wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 7:12 pm Magistrate Hilary Braley has the most marvelous deadpan:

Same mutt, picked the wrong judge to roll out the sovcit babble to:

John Thomas8 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 4:56 pm

GlimDropper wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 7:12 pm Magistrate Hilary Braley has the most marvelous deadpan:

Same mutt, picked the wrong judge to roll out the sovcit babble to:

Is he this stupid or does he need a couple months worth of three hots and a cot?

Could be both I guess.

He struck me as not endowed with the gift of brilliance and also possibly not unimpaired some of the time.

Resume18 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 6:58 pm

Is he this stupid or does he need a couple months worth of three hots and a cot?

Could be both I guess.

The accused is that stupid, inarticulately spouting sovcit nonsense to Judge Simpson. In the videos I've seen, Judge Simpson is fair and compassionate, until he encounters this foolishness. He's consistently curbed stomped every induhvidual that attempts it.

John Thomas8 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 7:14 pm

Resume18 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 6:58 pm

Is he this stupid or does he need a couple months worth of three hots and a cot?

Could be both I guess.

The accused is that stupid, inarticulately spouting sovcit nonsense to Judge Simpson. In the videos I've seen, Judge Simpson is fair and compassionate, until he encounters this foolishness. He's consistently curbed stomped every induhvidual that attempts it.

I see what you did there.

it did not go good for this guy babbling in sovcit stuff, at least he still has a public defender.

ps. i think he ought to have reading glasses, and his mental state may be sub par

a very special sovcit of the "freeman" persuasion, religious crackpot

has a very skewed interpretation of English terms

video is commented by poster

a couple of years old, but a special kind of stupid, a sovcit with a mix of a1A auditor while not understanding 1st Amendment
Obnoxious is the best description.

I do not expect anyone to last thru to the end

Judge C. Simpson is the best


so is Judge Oakley but we don't get as much video from him.

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 11:17 am Judge C. Simpson is the best


so is Judge Oakley but we don't get as much video from him.

Throw in Jeffrey Middleton, also in Michigan. I sometimes stream his daily court proceedings since he's so entertaining.

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 8:35 am a couple of years old, but a special kind of stupid, a sovcit with a mix of a1A auditor while not understanding 1st Amendment
Obnoxious is the best description.

I do not expect anyone to last thru to the end

[media]https://youtu.be/4uWWOaVOfDQ[/media]

That dude was something else.

sovcit pro se in court. needs more time to go to the library to do more research on things he quoted in papers submitted to the court and can't remember the background of what he quoted in those papers, and it's unconstitutional to limit his time to speak on his case in court, 1st Amendment and all that and the writers of the Declaration of Independance agree with him ...

ps. i do not blame anyone who cannot follow thru to the end

I think I have to start laundry and trim my nails and vacuum the truck and install fiber into my house. Might not have time to jump feet first into the personal truth gynastics of another entitled redneck fuckwad nose-picking idiot. Hats off to the court staff professional mental health specialists who do.

For unknown reason I spend recently time on watching those sovcit court proceedings. Now the judges tend to let the sovcit speak their time, and even give them extra time for their gibberish, but it goes all into the record. Then the judges go to deny "motion" after "motion" (the stuff they file so misformed, misaligned, mis-stapled ) and make a final ruling, letting the sovcit hang out to dry. "If you do not like it, you can appeal". In one case the sovcit did not even want to accept the summary ruling in court, the paper that will allow him to appeal, cause "he does not contract with the court" The court told him he can pick it up anytime at the clerks office, and he has three weeks for the appeal.

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 2:50 pm

sovcit pro se in court. needs more time to go to the library to do more research on things he quoted in papers submitted to the court and can't remember the background of what he quoted in those papers, and it's unconstitutional to limit his time to speak on his case in court, 1st Amendment and all that and the writers of the Declaration of Independance agree with him ...

ps. i do not blame anyone who cannot follow thru to the end

I would truly love to follow Mr. Martin's case to it's logical end: An epic dick slap. I don't think it will be recorded for YouTube though, but I think I'll hear said slap over here in Illinois.

it is cathartic for me.

when windows get broke and people get tased soothes me



As A History teacher those people IRK me immensly.



watching them get their due is my relief

oh my god

these nut jobs tried to get a stone with ashley Babbitts name on it in Arlington


ttps://youtu.be/XlER4i_FFe4?si=O7Zg3q_X5COUavv8

Fast And Furious

That dude did not mess around at all.

It was refreshing.

I like the way she said "I dont understand Speed Limits," near the end while she was Travveling in the back of the Police Cruiser. That's Sovcit Lingo as well. They think "Understand" is Legalese for "Stand under the authority."

So If you say you "Understand" they are tricking you into accepting a contract.

So they think when a Cop or Judge asks "Do you understand?" if you say NO then they cant do anything to you.

So, by saying "I dont understand Speed Limits" she is saing "I dont stand under Speed Limits."

So, She does not consent, dammit!!