Fogbow

So far, this is the most intense, dramatic moment of SovCit clown Darrell's trial. Have set the YouTube to start with the Medical Examiner's autopsy protocol of 8-year-old Jackson Sparks, the youngest of the 6 people Darrell killed. An interview with his parents is at https://www.cbs58.com/news/family-opens ... de-tragedy. The little boy became an organ donor. The Medical Examiner was in tears and for once, Darrell was stopped cold. He has kids and something clicked in his brain, maybe he finally realized the consequences of his actions. It's more compelling and emotional than anything that could be scripted. Advisory: It features the autopsy protocol diagram and discusses sensitive topics.




And here it is, the full SovCit rant for nearly 50 minutes and the angry response from the DA and judge to Darrell's insane SovCit bullshit. This is the result of the grifters and scammers who mislead weak-minded people about baseless fantasy claims about the legal system. In this case, the SovCit is trying to get away with murder as mentioned above. It doesn't work and SovCits should watch how Darrell's ridiculous arguments are destroyed. In several cross-examinations, they were closed because of ridiculous SovCit questions, making Darrell look stupid and hurting his defense. I'd totally support additional penalties for anyone wasting court resources with this nonsense. YouTube set to start at the rant.





Here's part of the SovCit nonsense being analyzed: Darrell Brooks Incorrectly Invokes His 6th Amendment Right

In unrelated sovcit nuttery, we have JACQUELINE GRAHAM and her "Terra Foundation".

She appears to have used a variant of the classic "three/five-letters scheme" to practice mortgage fraud. As the Seventh Circuit put it:

Jacqueline Graham approached struggling homeowners with an offer that was too good to be true: In exchange for a fee, her partnership (the “Terra Foundation” or “Terra”) could purportedly eliminate a customer’s mortgage debts in full. Styling herself as a “sovereign citizen[],” Graham pledged that she would help these homeowners fight against the prevailing “[Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)] system” by marshaling obscure parts of the “common law.” In reality, however, Graham’s tactics were far more mundane. She and her coconspirators would pretend to be employees of mortgagee banks, send county title offices fake notices of discharge, and convince them to erase any record of the banks’ interests in the subject properties. Once Graham’s scheme was uncovered, the banks reinstated their interests, but Terra’s “clients” could not recover the fees they had paid. In all, the scheme temporarily erased nearly $40 million of debt in connection with over 60 mortgage loans.
To execute the fraud, Terra used a “three-step procedure”: “(1) an audit, (2) a ‘Qualified Written Request’ [QWR] to the client’s mortgage lender, and (3) the filing of a discharge of mortgage in the local clerk’s office.” Id. at A-54. Each QWR contained a series of pseudo-legal questions, purportedly based on one of Terra’s “audits,” demanding detailed narrative responses and documentary submissions. If Terra received no response from the lender or considered a response insufficient, it would claim that the lending bank had ceded authority over the mortgage to Terra. One of Graham’s coconspirators would then claim to be an agent of the lending bank, prepare a notice of discharge, and file it with the relevant county clerk.

She persisted in this chicanery even after being told in no uncertain terms that it was illegal:

The government also introduced certain “red flag” emails sent among Graham, Cermele, and an outside attorney. The attorney, after learning of Graham’s methods, gave a detailed explanation of why they were illegitimate. Referring to those methods, he summarized that he could “unequivocally say that the filing of those liens, the transfer of the properties, the creation of the trusts, etc., constitutes a crime.” Graham responded by asserting that this attorney was uneducated in the “common law,” and she later wrote that “title companies . . . are LAWYER owned and part of the UCC system we fight against.”

And in fact she kept at it even after the feds raided her office.

As a result, she is now Guest #23853-111 of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, currently scheduled to stay until January 21, 2028.

As a result, she is now Guest #23853-111 of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, currently scheduled to stay until January 21, 2028.

Which means she is going to miss the Solar Eclipse on April 8th, 2024 unless she gets night yard time.

orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 5:06 pm Finally happened, Darrell has been building up to a massive hurl and he did it today in court. 50 minutes of bullshit, sovcit nuttery, charges of treason, the whole ball of wax. The DA was horrified and angry at his lies and craziness and brought up cases calling it mumbo jumbo etc. The judge is still being too nice to him, but dismantled all his trash and made it sound like she's going to be stricter. For sure there will be a video of this segment. It was with the jury out of the courtroom after a wonderful witness, one of the Dancing Grannies (he killed four of them). More to come.

The judge unloaded on him and explained pretty clearly how the court got its jurisdiction. Then the prosecutor lit into him too.

Law&Crime has been live-streaming the trial via YouTube & twitch

At this point, I'm waiting to see if transcripts come out, since I tried watching the videos and I ... just can't. It's exhausting.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Oct 15, 2022 3:37 am At this point, I'm waiting to see if transcripts come out, since I tried watching the videos and I ... just can't. It's exhausting.

I know what you mean. Crime and Law has summations on their channel. So you can get the highlights.

It seems Brooks is running through the sovcit play book and has gotten to the admiralty court argument.

Who's betting he loses his stuff when he realizes nothing is going to save him and the jury is about to give him the chair? I am betting he goes off big time. I give 2 to 1 odds in play money.

arayder wrote: ↑Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:32 am

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Oct 15, 2022 3:37 am At this point, I'm waiting to see if transcripts come out, since I tried watching the videos and I ... just can't. It's exhausting.

I know what you mean. Crime and Law has summations on their channel. So you can get the highlights.

It seems Brooks is running through the sovcit play book and has gotten to the admiralty court argument.

Who's betting he loses his stuff when he realizes nothing is going to save him and the jury is about to give him the chair? I am betting he goes off big time. I give 2 to 1 odds in play money.

Exactly. I mean, what these folks don't seem to get is that if they really *are* the victims of a corrupt court, why do they think saying magic words to that same court is going to save them?

I’ve been watching some of the live feed of the Darrell Brooks case. It seems he isn’t a “real” sovereign citizen but like many he has adopted some of their inevitably unsuccessful idiocies. I’ve lost count of the number of times he has repeated his favourites - not consenting to being addressed by his given name, proof of jurisdiction, and there not being a “living person as plaintiff.
I’m pretty sure he has alienated everyone in the courtroom

Brooks has begun calling defence witnesses and so far each of them have been very helpful to the prosecution case. “A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has A Fool for a Client” is an understatement in this case.

I assume the unbelievably patient Judge is indulging him as she knows that he is going to be found guilty and be sentenced to one or more life sentences. Seeing someone so inept, totally out of their depth, almost makes it pitiful to watch, but his lack of any remorse and obnoxious behaviour quickly outweigh any such feelings.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:48 pm I’ve been watching some of the live feed of the Darrell Brooks case. It seems he isn’t a “real” sovereign citizen but like many he has adopted some of their inevitably unsuccessful idiocies. I’ve lost count of the number of times he has repeated his favourites - not consenting to being addressed by his given name, proof of jurisdiction, and there not being a “living person as plaintiff.
I’m pretty sure he has alienated everyone in the courtroom

Brooks has begun calling defence witnesses and so far each of them have been very helpful to the prosecution case. “A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has A Fool for a Client” is an understatement in this case.

I assume the unbelievably patient Judge is indulging him as she knows that he is going to be found guilty and be sentenced to one or more life sentences. Seeing someone so inept, totally out of their depth, almost makes it pitiful to watch, but his lack of any remorse and obnoxious behaviour quickly outweigh any such feelings.

I think someone is feeding him all that pseudo-law he spews and perhaps he even buys into some of it, but mostly he's just stalling and pissing off the judge and prosecution for shits and giggles, knowing full well he's going up the river for good.

I've been watching on Court TV Live and one commentator said he was trying to get the judge to hold him in contempt and be removed from the courtroom completely so he's set up for an appeal. But she's not biting, although it would be lovely to watch. Thoughts?

Quite possibly. He’ll clutch at any straw to delay the inevitable no matter how pointless. It seems that he is totally incapable of accepting that his devastating loss of self-control that resulted in such horrendous casualties means that, as he put whilst being interviewed by the police, “his life is over”.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:41 pm I've been watching on Court TV Live and one commentator said he was trying to get the judge to hold him in contempt and be removed from the courtroom completely so he's set up for an appeal. But she's not biting, although it would be lovely to watch. Thoughts?

I believe that, at one point, very early in the trial, he WAS removed from the courtroom. He had to sit in a small room nearby and watch and participate via closed circuit TV. The judge had a mute button. I think that this was after he removed his shirt and was shouting at the judge. She only allowed him back in after he started taking his meds again and promised to be good.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:41 pm I've been watching on Court TV Live and one commentator said he was trying to get the judge to hold him in contempt and be removed from the courtroom completely so he's set up for an appeal. But she's not biting, although it would be lovely to watch. Thoughts?

I've been watching the Law & Crime stream. He's woefully wrecking his defense.

Flatpoint High wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:16 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:41 pm I've been watching on Court TV Live and one commentator said he was trying to get the judge to hold him in contempt and be removed from the courtroom completely so he's set up for an appeal. But she's not biting, although it would be lovely to watch. Thoughts?

I've been watching the Law & Crime stream. He's woefully wrecking his defense.

IANAL, but I know that appeals courts don't look kindly on a pro se defendant who appeals their inevitable conviction on the grounds of inadequate counsel.

I believe, however, that I've heard of a few cases in which the appellant successfully argued that the trial judge should never have allowed him to defend himself. I don't think that Brooks is deliberately trying to set up such an appeal, but, could he be granted a new trial on the grounds that the judge erred in allowing him to defend himself?

Pro se defendants are seldom, if ever, any good as trial lawyers, but Brooks seems to know less than nothing about court procedures, rules of evidence and normal courtroom decorum. Nor does he seem interested in learning.

Got hooked on this trial and have seen almost all of it. Yes, the judge kept putting him in the courtroom next door when he acted out. Happened again briefly yesterday. He wants the contempt charge because it would slow everything down... they'd have to stop the trial to deal with it. So the judge hasn't done it. Brooks is totally incompetent in representing himself, today's witnesses were laughable for him, they were, to say the least, hostile witnesses.

Today, it was revealed that even Brooks' mother provided Ring video footage of his Red Ford SUV in her backyard at 1:30pm that day... the video shows him crossing to the car and the car going out of view (it only showed the front third of the SUV but it was obvious). There was also a screenshot shown of the SUV and its license plate with his back to the camera. Brooks had the nerve to try to imply that it wasn't him. So the DA brought in a new exhibit, it was from a music video Brooks did (that's where the screenshot came from, like Brooks didn't know). He went ballistic when the new evidence was admitted. He has no clue about court procedures or almost anything else, his grammar and lack of vocabulary are not helping.

It'll be another crazy day tomorrow when he's presenting his case. He wanted 13 witnesses to testify (including "the State of Wisconsin), he still asks about Subject Matter Jurisdiction every single chance he gets even though the judge issued a written decision overruling and dismissing it. They have like 6 witnesses coming tomorrow, but Brooks drags things out with dumb, non-helpful questions so we'll see how far they get. No doubt he's going to try to sneak in his SovCit talking points -- that's been entertaining to watch the rapid-fire "Objection" Sustained" "Grounds" "Ask your next question" foreplay. It would be absolutely shocking if the jury doesn't give him consecutive life sentences.

It seems to me that Brooks is acting out his personality and mental health problems right before our eyes.

He is trying to demand that the court and the law bend to his will and, as he found out in his earlier outside the court life, the world will have none of it. He's not dealing well with the set backs he's suffering in court and doesn't seem to realize that he's digging himself a deeper hole. My guess is that this sort of poor judgement isn't a new thing in Brook's life.

This makes me wonder if many of the sovcit/freemen we have seen flapping their gums in court over the years have had the same sort of personality or mental health problems?

good observation

arayder wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:48 am It seems to me that Brooks is acting out his personality and mental health problems right before our eyes.

This makes me wonder if many of the sovcit/freemen we have seen flapping their gums in court over the years have had the same sort of personality or mental health problems?

I think in some cases, that is true. Few seem as far gone as Brooks.

They all are convinced that they know the law better than any lawyer or judge, and are shocked when the judge and prosecutor don't recognize this. Even after they find themselves sitting in prison, they are not convinced. "The judge and jury were all part of the corporate cabal that has taken over our country, particularly the courts".

One thing that they all seem to have in common is that they are all completely and utterly bereft of critical thinking skills. If I had not heard of the sovcit nonsense or tax-denier gibberish, and someone told me that paying taxes is voluntary, or that I am exempt because I am not an elected official, I would, at the very least, think to myself "that doesn't sound right. I'd better check this out". They don't do that. They hear that claim and say "Wow! That's great news. I don't have to pay taxes!".

When something doesn't jibe with other facts that you know, that is the first red flag that critical thinking raises. If someone told me that they saw a great white shark in Lake Erie, I would immediately disbelieve it, because, while it would be conceivably possible for a fish to make it from the ocean to Lake Erie, via the St. Lawrence Seaway, I know that sharks can't survive in fresh water. That's critical thinking.

Many sovcits are mentally ill, to some degree, but there are many that I would not categorize that way. Mental health is a spectrum. How far from the center does one have to be before we consider that person "mentally ill".

All that being said, I do believe that Mr. Brooks is one of those who do have some rather serious mental issues.

living person as plaintiff

That would seem damn convenient in a murder trial, wouldn't it?

While agreeing with noblepa's analysis, it's also relevant that many sovcits seem to have adopted this nonsense after negative interactions with state, local or sometimes federal authorities, often in the context of child services or child protection. They were looking for a way of pushing back and sovcittery offered them that hope, albeit a false hope. Often they got into the mess they're in precisely because of their lack of critical (or other) thinking skills.

And, as this case shows, with a few sovcits it's a manifestation of their mental illness. It's sad then, although mental illness is rarely the cause of or an adequate excuse for severely antisocial behavior.

Not downplaying mental illness, it's a terrible affliction, but I'm not sure "You're not the boss of me," qualifies, which is, basically, what Sam said.

I think he might just be ab asshole.

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 12:39 pm
When something doesn't jibe with other facts that you know, that is the first red flag that critical thinking raises. If someone told me that they saw a great white shark in Lake Erie, I would immediately disbelieve it, because, while it would be conceivably possible for a fish to make it from the ocean to Lake Erie, via the St. Lawrence Seaway, I know that sharks can't survive in fresh water. That's critical thinking.

Bull sharks!
(But as you say not great whites)

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/docum ... 0shark.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7513757/

Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement by Christine M. Sarteschi

See: 1.6. Mental health