Sovcit nutz

[arayder]

My question is what could a real lawyer do on an appeal of this case? That is assuming that Brooks decides to lawyer up after losing.

Brooks objections are getting dismissed so routinely that I have to wonder if he didn't stumble onto some sane point by mistake which the judge simply dismissed as another pile of sovcit BS.

On appeal a lawyers best bet would be to argue that Mr. Brooks obviously should never have been allowed to represent himself. Odds are tenuous at best that it would work but that's the only real argument I can see being made, that he is incapable of being an effective advocate for himself and thus should have been provided representation even if he wished to waive it. They may attempt to argue he has an undiagnosed mental issue to help shore up that argument as someone who is mentally ill and unmedicated would not be allowed to waive counsel.

I could be wrong, but I think that once the court says the defendant is competent to stand trial he/she has the right to serve as their own counsel.

I could be wrong but I think that no matter how badly the nutty pro se defendants mess it up they don't get to turn around and appeal based on the fact that they didn't have adequate counsel.

[Luke]

Soooo Darrell brought up three SovCit cases, looks like he might have found them (Melo v. US, Hagans v. Levine, US v. Lopez) here: http://freedomfromgovernment.org/challe ... mydiction/ All three are on that website.

The SovCit citation is wrong, Darrell said it's Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533. The judge corrected it, it's Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528. Might be that all the SovCit sites have it wrong, or it could be this site.

Darrell actually read this to the judge about what he wants: “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” and “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” So they are straight copies from the below.

The state has a response to those cases, but the judge wants to read the cases tonight. But FIRST THING TOMORROW they are going to discuss them! Hopefully, the prominence of this case and the smackdown Darrell is about to get will resonate with the idiots who buy into (literally) that nonsense. Of course most of them won't, but at least the grift and fraud is going to be called out nationally/internationally. Darrell is still absolutely stuck on "Subject Matter Jurisdiction", "Judicial Determinations", not identifying with his name, statement of offenses and all the nuttiness we're seen these losers try to pull. Haven't seen them attempted in such a high profile trial but maybe that's just me.

Challenge Jurismydiction!

Challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to lose!

If they attempt to tell you that you can’t question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533. Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction.

If it [jurisdiction] doesn’t exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. …without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State’s/ USA ‘s cause.

Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).”

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.”The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

“A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.”the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.

Meanwhile, hearing the testimony of how this evil son of a bitch ran down a school marching band, rolled over the bodies and kept going is sickening. He was hitting children (one Dad was on, and his 9-year-old son had nerve damage in his knees where the vehicle struck him). Wisconsin hasn't had the death penalty since the 1850s. The SovCit BS is another smokescreen just like his fake COVID. He moved for adjournment and took a ton of time on it, said he couldn't taste anything... when the results came in he didn't want to tell what they were so the judge forced it. He was negative. Panda is the expert, but can not imagine a jury will need much time to find him guilty and send him away forever. And that will be good.

[Luke]

BONUS: That bogus SovCit site has a "Counsel Questionnaire" for potential attorneys to fill out. It has many of the SovCit cases they misread and misuse, it's a handy guide to stupid.

Prospective Counsel Competency Questionnaire

Let it be known that I DO NOT RECOMMEND hiring an attorney if you can avoid it. They are all officers of the court, and their first loyalty lies with the court not the client. Check out this article to learn more truth about attorneys.

So, only if you absolutely need to, you can use the following form to see just how good they are and what their track record looks like and evaluate their knowledge and skill level. Use the following questionnaire to find out if they are willing to really defend you. Simply print and then fill out the second page and submit to your prospective counsel.

Competent Counsel Questionnaire (.PDF Download)

http://freedomfromgovernment.org/compet ... tionnaire/

Competent-Counsel-Questionnaire-09062012-00.pdf

(391.56 KiB) Downloaded 34 times

SovCit Cases.JPG (75.39 KiB) Viewed 2012 times

[arayder]

Soooo Darrell brought up three SovCit cases, looks like he might have found them (Melo v. US, Hagans v. Levine, US v. Lopez) here: http://freedomfromgovernment.org/challe ... mydiction/ All three are on that website.

The SovCit citation is wrong, Darrell said it's Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533. The judge corrected it, it's Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528. Might be that all the SovCit sites have it wrong, or it could be this site.

One of the favorite tricks used by sovcit wannabe scholars is to purposefully alter the case cites in their phony web articles.

That way if a sovcit rube attempting to use the cite in court tries to check out the case he/she won't be able to find it and will likely figure that's it just his mistake. The rube will then just go on and read the language the phony scout scholar put in the web article and assume it's correct and applicable.

It's usually not of any use at all to the sovcit arguing pro se.

Often the cases cited have been modified by subsequent decisions/rulings.

Sometimes the language has just been lifted out of context by the phony sovcit scholar and has a different meaning when read in the correct context.

Sometimes the cases just don't apply to the situation the rube sovcit is in.

I have even seen these phony scholars quote language from dissenting judges pretending that such is binding law.

My guess is that somebody is "helping" Brooks and in the process filling him full of all this sovcit BS.

[noblepa]

Soooo Darrell brought up three SovCit cases, looks like he might have found them (Melo v. US, Hagans v. Levine, US v. Lopez) here: http://freedomfromgovernment.org/challe ... mydiction/ All three are on that website.

The SovCit citation is wrong, Darrell said it's Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533. The judge corrected it, it's Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528. Might be that all the SovCit sites have it wrong, or it could be this site.

One of the favorite tricks used by sovcit wannabe scholars is to purposefully alter the case cites in their phony web articles.

That way if a sovcit rube attempting to use the cite in court tries to check out the case he/she won't be able to find it and will likely figure that's it just his mistake. The rube will then just go on and read the language the phony scout scholar put in the web article and assume it's correct and applicable.

It's usually not of any use at all to the sovcit arguing pro se.

Often the cases cited have been modified by subsequent decisions/rulings.

Sometimes the language has just been lifted out of context by the phony sovcit scholar and has a different meaning when read in the correct context.

Sometimes the cases just don't apply to the situation the rube sovcit is in.

I have even seen these phony scholars quote language from dissenting judges pretending that such is binding law.

My guess is that somebody is "helping" Brooks and in the process filling him full of all this sovcit BS.

And, they often make the mistake of citing a State court ruling in a Federal court case.

[northland10]

One of the difficulties in getting those who except the SovCit crud to walk away is it requires them to admit that they were lied to and willingly followed the lie. To back off and say, you were duped, could be considered a sign of embarrassment and weakness. Some can turn, but it is very difficult.

Cults, cons, etc., work because it continuously plays on emotions, and emotions can be a far stronger pull than facts.

[arayder]

I don't see why the judge doesn't state the court's constitutional and statutory authority to prosecute people who are alleged to have committed homicide and be done with it.

Maybe she has and I missed it.

Brooks seems to be touching all the sovcit bases like pretending this is a civil suit.

[Luke]

Once again Darrell started up with the "third party intervenor" nonsense.

They started a bit with the bogus SovCit cases, but didn't get into them in detail. As Arayder said, they're all irrelevant. One is Federal and related to a challenge to gun free school zones. Clearly, he hasn't read the cases, he's just parroting bullshit. Some SovCit must be giving him his insanity.

Darrell has picked up a super annoying habit. Now every time there's an objection, even though the DA's lawyers state the nature of the objections, Darrell says "grounds" like that might change something. Is that a SovCit thing? He also has no idea why "hearsay" is, he uses it for anything including witnesses' direct answers to questions.

More tragic testimony that he's treated like it's a completely different person who did it. One lady testified her friend had spinal fluid leaking out of her nose and they rushed her for a CT scan. It sounds like she recovered but not 100% clear. There are times he seems lucid but he's an evil (and stupid) monster.

[keith]

I have even seen these phony scholars quote language from dissenting judges pretending that such is binding law.

Or quoting from the Judges rehearsal of the case in the prologue and taking it as 'the ruling' (see: every Birther argument ever, especially when 'discussing' Wong Kim Ark.

[Ben-Prime]

Darrell has picked up a super annoying habit. Now every time there's an objection, even though the DA's lawyers state the nature of the objections, Darrell says "grounds" like that might change something. Is that a SovCit thing? He also has no idea why "hearsay" is, he uses it for anything including witnesses' direct answers to questions.

I think part of it was early on, when he was making all of his interruptions and objecting even to the judge's most minor rulings, she kept noting but not acting on his objections because he had given no grounds nor stated desired relief. And he's slowly learning the magic incantations, but hasn't gotten that actual law school is where they teach you the rhythm and meaning of the words.

[Luke]

Wonder if we should have a Darrell topic... he's here because he's indeed a SovCit Nut, but it's a unique case to have such a high profile SovCit and the records and antics will be interesting in the future vs. subsumed in this topic. Like not sure if Panda knows this is here and it's his wheelhouse, we'd learn a lot.

Gateway House of Boys did a story on this and they call him BLM SUPPORTER DARRELL BROOKS.

Here we go again with Darrell... every day simply when the judge asks for appearances, he says:

"I'm here as a third-party intervener in that matter appearing as authorized representative for my client. I accept for value and return for value all of the charging instruments in this matter and make my exemption available for discharge of all obligations and charges connected with this case. I do not dispute any of the facts in the charging instruments." Then when the judge says the defendant known as Darrell Brooks is present in this court, he replies "For the record I do not identify by that name or consent to being called that name."

Then on a "13th subpoena" he wants for his defense, he asks "under the 6th Amendment I have the right to face my accuser". He wants to call "State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff". In a MAJOR SHOUTOUT to The Fogbow (and Bob), the judge says she's reviewing it FOR COMPLETENESS! How did Foggy get to the judge? Then the judge says, "that's an entity, you have to name a person, Sir". He asks if there's a legal basis for this. Judge says he has to have a person so they can come testify. This goes around, the State says of course Wisconsin cannot testify and the form indicates putting a person's name and address. Darrell: "Every document filed in this matter stated Wisconsin was the plaintiff which will lead me to believe that Wisconsin who's bringing the claim against my client How could they not be subpoenaed if they're the plaintiff". My accuser is Wisconsin. Judge shuts it down, says 6th Amendment rights have been complied with, he's been able to cross every witness, and the court will keep it on record but no subpoena for you. Then he requests a written judicial finding of fact and conclusion of law for this issue. "If I can't face my accuser, how can the claim even stand?" He screws up and says I and me. Then he says "...against my client". Running in circles.

Judge: "This case is a criminal case in a court of competent jurisdiction in the state of Wisconsin and Waukesha County. This case was initiated initially by a filing of a criminal complaint, and then there was a preliminary hearing where probable cause was found, after that point there was an Information that was filed, and at some point an Amended Complaint, perhaps even a Second Amended Complaint was filed as well, putting you on notice of the charges and the factual basis for those along with the statutes that are alleged to have been violated. I'm not going to explain any further why you can't call the state of Wisconsin in the way that you've attempted to subpoena them for the reasons I've already stated. I understand you may disagree with the court's ruling, but my ruling stands and I'm not requiring the plaintiff in this case to serve that subpoena in any way for the defects I've already noted. I'm also not going to issue a written decision, the record speaks for itself."

He goes on to say it hasn't been proven there's Subject Matter Jurisdiction, there's no verified proof. (That one always gets me, if they didn't have jurisdiction, why is he in jail? ) He says he hasn't seen a Complaint... the judge said he was provided with the SAC along with the Information provided previously and noted on the record.

Judge: "I've already noted your Motion to Dismiss previously, I'm not going to revisit that. There's no legal basis requiring me to do that Sir. The plaintiff in this matter has presented witnesses to establish venue and again, it's a criminal case with criminal charges with a SAC detailing the factual basis on which these charges are based. We're a notice pleading state and along with the Information you have been made aware of all of the charges and the penalties you face and the factual basis on which the state has brought these charges. We're in the middle of trial, your objections are noted, we will continue today with the jury trial."

In other words, SMACKDOWN!

Since those magik words didn't work, Darrell tries some more: "For the record may I respectfully move for an interlocutory declaratory appeal on this matter Your Honor?" Judge: "Your request is noted for the record, I'm not an appellate court, Sir." Darrell: "For the record, may I move to stay these proceedings until this instant matter is adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction?" Judge: "Your request is denied". Darrell: "Based on what law or fact Your Honor?" Judge: "I've previously addressed the issue Sir, the law of the case." Darrell: "Are you making a judicial determination that I'm not awarded my Sixth Amendment right to face my accuser?" Judge: "I'm not making any such determination here today."

And that's the ballgame. In other words, SMACKDOWN!

On to the witness. That was a lot to transcribe and type but it was important to have a judge's replies to these stupid SovCit scripts.

Darrell Brooks Reps Himself as a 'Third Party Intervener'




By the way, Grammarly is a cool program, it corrects spelling and some grammar in the free version and works with Fogbow messages. You can use a throwaway email to sign up for it free, recommend it a lot. I also use Typio Form Recovery, also free, it autosaves everything in case of crashes or whatever, it keeps messages almost everywhere including Twitter. /geek out

[Foggy]

Off Topic

... not sure if Panda knows this is here and it's his wheelhouse, we'd learn a lot.

Fierceredpanda was on the Virtual Meetup last night, with great insights about current events to share with us.

Y'all miss some super lively discussions if you don't join us!

[arayder]

This is a PR nightmare for sovcits, freemen-on-the-land and their phony gurus.

It's one thing to try all this rigamarole in an attempt to beat a driving without a license charge. After all the average sovcit/freeman believes he/she can drive their cars without licenses, insurance or registration because they think that's part of their 'freedom to travel" thing.

But Brooks is trying to beat the rap on a murder charge. . .a crime that dates back to the imagined "common law" days the sovcits wax about.

As has been pointed out countless times people like Brooks are exactly the reason societies have laws and courts.

In the past many have pointed out the insane, society killing unfairness of sovcit/freemen using these tactics in their attempts to avoid accountability for abusing their families, cheating others, starving their dogs and a host of other heinous crimes.

. . .but this one takes the cake

[Ben-Prime]

Off Topic

... not sure if Panda knows this is here and it's his wheelhouse, we'd learn a lot.

Fierceredpanda was on the Virtual Meetup last night, with great insights about current events to share with us.

Y'all miss some super lively discussions if you don't join us!

Alas, time zones. The one time I dropped in from Bangladesh, it was 5:30am for me on a day when I didn't have to work. I may stay up late on a vacation day in a few weeks and pop in past midnight my time, tho. And my next assignment will put me one time zone away from Bangladesh so maybe I can sip my coffee one morning while a meetup happens.

[northland10]

This is a PR nightmare for sovcits, freemen-on-the-land and their phony gurus.

It's one thing to try all this rigamarole in an attempt to beat a driving without a license charge. After all the average sovcit/freeman believes he/she can drive their cars without licenses, insurance or registration because they think that's part of their 'freedom to travel" thing.

But Brooks is trying to beat the rap on a murder charge. . .a crime that dates back to the imagined "common law" days the sovcits wax about.

As has been pointed out countless times people like Brooks are exactly the reason societies have laws and courts.

In the past many have pointed out the insane, society killing unfairness of sovcit/freemen using these tactics in their attempts to avoid accountability for abusing their families, cheating others, starving their dogs and a host of other heinous crimes.

. . .but this one takes the cake

Wasn't it Trussel or another one of the Florida folks who said that you should be able to just sit down with the victim and work it out? In addition, they said laws like driving or tinted windows had no victims so were fake laws. When asked about larger crimes like murder where there was a victim though no longer able to have a meeting, they would hem, haw, and change the subject.

Well, here we have just that and he uses the same arguments. Many SovCits only become that way to avoid responsibility for their actions. This one is likely one of those and not a true believer.

I don't see it as a PR nightmare because other SovCits will just deny this ever happened.

[arayder]

I don't see it as a PR nightmare because other SovCits will just deny this ever happened.

Well, you are probably right about that. The denial might also come in the form of claiming Brooks was innocent from the get go and never got a fair trial. To the sovcits a fair trial would have had the judge recognizing all his sovcit mumbo-jumbo.

[Luke]

Here it is -- judge starts with "Reviewing this for completeness" and off he goes with all the nonsense posted above. This will be a classic SovCit clip.

[Gupwalla]

Off Topic

... not sure if Panda knows this is here and it's his wheelhouse, we'd learn a lot.

Fierceredpanda was on the Virtual Meetup last night, with great insights about current events to share with us.

Y'all miss some super lively discussions if you don't join us!

As a small part of that lively discussion, FRPanda did comment on Wisconsin’s normal lack of a grand jury. Jermaine! (But this particular case did not come up.)

[Gregg]

This is a PR nightmare for sovcits, freemen-on-the-land and their phony gurus.

It's one thing to try all this rigamarole in an attempt to beat a driving without a license charge. After all the average sovcit/freeman believes he/she can drive their cars without licenses, insurance or registration because they think that's part of their 'freedom to travel" thing.

But Brooks is trying to beat the rap on a murder charge. . .a crime that dates back to the imagined "common law" days the sovcits wax about.

As has been pointed out countless times people like Brooks are exactly the reason societies have laws and courts.

In the past many have pointed out the insane, society killing unfairness of sovcit/freemen using these tactics in their attempts to avoid accountability for abusing their families, cheating others, starving their dogs and a host of other heinous crimes.

. . .but this one takes the cake

But ya know, how much worse is he gonna be on the other end than if he had a competent attorney? Dude is guilty, everyone knows he is guilty, he himself is not disputing the facts of the case "He ran over a lot of people with a car" and it's not like Johnny Cochran would get him off.

He is going to jail for the rest of his life, and if he had a damn good attorney he would be going to jail for the rest of his life.

[northland10]

By the way, Grammarly is a cool program, it corrects spelling and some grammar in the free version and works with Fogbow messages. You can use a throwaway email to sign up for it free, recommend it a lot. I also use Typio Form Recovery, also free, it autosaves everything in case of crashes or whatever, it keeps messages almost everywhere including Twitter. /geek out

I have used it for a while and went up to the premium version in the last year or so. I need as much help as possible. It gets a bit annoyed on Fogbow as I will sometimes intentionally use less than proper grammar and also employ wordage that is far more conversational or casual than normally done in writing (sometimes intentionally).

[Sam the Centipede]

Iz we goin' to be flamed or not red if what we uses bad grammer und speling? It's never occured to myself to employ a splepcheckers or grandma chequers. I just rights natrully perfick.

[Ben-Prime]

Here it is -- judge starts with "Reviewing this for completeness" and off he goes with all the nonsense posted above. This will be a classic SovCit clip.

Amazing to me how these people think that they are lawfully authorized to appear not as themselves but as their own agent -- substituting a legal entity for a physical one -- but appear mystified by the fact the State of Wisconsin as a *legal* entity cannot empower physical entitites such as the police and prosecutors to act and speak on its behalf. Like the concept is too much for them to grasp.

[pipistrelle]

Iz we goin' to be flamed or not red if what we uses bad grammer und speling? It's never occured to myself to employ a splepcheckers or grandma chequers. I just rights natrully perfick.

Eh, I tried Grammarly but don't like the privacy thing. And I'm a better writer/editor than it is, so there's that.

[noblepa]

I don't see it as a PR nightmare because other SovCits will just deny this ever happened.

Well, you are probably right about that. The denial might also come in the form of claiming Brooks was innocent from the get go and never got a fair trial. To the sovcits a fair trial would have had the judge recognizing all his sovcit mumbo-jumbo.

Or, they will argue that Brooks didn't say the right majik wordz, or say them correctly, or at the right time. Its not that the magic doesn't work. He just did it wrong.

No one has yet mentioned the gold fringe on the flag in the courtroom.

[Luke]

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.