Judge Boots Darrell Brooks from Courtroom After Multiple Outbursts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2022
- Judge Jennifer Dorow removed Waukesha parade massacre suspect Darrell Brooks from the courtroom multiple times for disruptions on Tuesday. The Law&Crime Daily team has the latest on this trial.
L&C Daily Hosted By:
Brian Buckmire: / thebuckesq
Terri Austin: / terridaustin
Producers:
Sierra Gillespie: / sierragillespie
Juli Barkas: / julibarkas
Guest:
Christa Ramey: / christaramey
#WaukeshaParade #DarrellBrooks #LawAndCrime
STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on RUclipsTV: bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/3td2Iqo
LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: / lawandcrime
Twitter: / lawcrimenetwork
Facebook: / lawandcrime
Twitch: / lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: / lawandcrime
LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: lawandcrime.com/podcasts/
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK RUclips CHANNELS:
Main Channel: / @lawandcrime
Law&Crime Shorts: / @lawandcrimeshorts
Channel B: / @lawandcrimetrials
Channel C: / @lawandcrimebodycam 
Развлечения
This judge deserves combat pay
🏆
Judge deserves a stiff drink after court
Indeed! And a separate large fee of: Hazard Pay
He knows these are the last minor bits of control he will ever have over his life.
He has no control...that ended when he was taken into custody. This POS is not used to being held accountable!!
@@msknowitall4085 Exactly, and he's doing all this to try to get out of his charges
Interesting
Last ditch effort. And surprise, it won't work!
@Douglas Jones He was smart enough to listen to Joe Biden and run those people over. 10 bucks says Biden will pardon him.
Even lawyers have a lawyer defending them.
A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client.
"And a jacka** for an attorney."
~Benjamin Franklin
Seriously. Even lawyers don’t represent themselves.
Depends on the man
This is the kind of case that compels me to support the death penalty
Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty
This is the kind of case it's used for. No one wants to kill a common thief unless they feel they're own life is in danger.
Life in prisons worse.
@cj stats, not for the taxpayer.
And make it the Amos Miller method for Brooks.
It’s a shame he’s allowed to keep up with his behavior for any length of time I feel bad for the victims family 😢
I know. I do too. I cannot imagine how the ones in the courtroom must feel.
It’s a shame he’s allowed to breathe.
He is getting worse by the day smh I really can’t understand how this is allowed but have faith the judge knows what she is doing so he can’t claim unfair trial
*victims’ families. There are like 70 of his victims
The end justify the means. Prayers for all he inflicted his evil presence on. He damaged everyone in his evil path. ✝️
He was going to lose anyway. Choosing to represent yourself is as good as losing the case on arrival. I guess he decided to put on a show before he lost.
Yeh but it shouldn't be. Especially when the P defender works more with DA than with the client.
That's my take as well. It'll. Be his last laugh before going to jail for good.
@@nickysantoro9194 I hope you're not suggesting that public defendants are working with the prosecutors in any improper way.
Hes a SovCit...it's what they do. Normally they do this same song and dance for traffic tickets and convince themselves they are right. They choose to live outside the law but cry and beg for the protections the law provides. This isnt a traffic ticket...this is 70+ charges of murder and attempted murder.
It's always the crazy ones who thinks they can defend themselves in court.
Lock him up ASAP
Too easy, Car battery, a set of jumper cables and a bathtub of water.
@@MaidensWorldOfWax, Too quick. A blow torch and a pair of pliers.
Nipple tassels, feathers, hot wax
Innocent until proven guilty
He is locked up...
The judge is making a clear record for when she revokes his right to self representation. She had no good reason to not allow him his right to self representation initially, but she is very carefully making a clear record for when she revokes it. She's more shrewd than she's being given credit for.
Exactly..I don't understand why others can't see this..
@@missssophisicated6742 they don't take the time to stop and think things through. She's very likely going to Blandino him.
Thanks for the info, I didnt realize she could revoke it
Agreed it’s not the judges first rodeo
The question is: when will the judge revoke his right to represent himself? If he continues to act the way he has so far, he's not going to be allowed in the courtroom, and that would seriously impair his ability to present a defense, possibly to the point of causing a mistrial or grounds for appeal. And with jury selection already in progress, the judge isn't going to want to waste (potential) jurors' time, and so will want new counsel selected quickly so the trial can proceed.
My guess is that he's going to be so uncooperative during jury selection, that the judge will be forced to revoke his right to self representation before they have finished jury selection.
Him yelling in the adjacent courtroom while being muted in the primary courtroom is wonderful.
This guy is a complete fool
He's one very very disgusting human!!!
She should never have allowed him to rep himself.
He's gonna eventually have a lawyer..but it needed to play out to lessen his chance of appeal..
@@missssophisicated6742 exactly!
@@missssophisicated6742 he can't appeal for a mistrial on himself.
How does no one understand that if you waive you're right to an Attorney, you waive your right to an appeal.
He would be able to argue the sentence, but not the verdict.
@@5Ci0N No, he can’t appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel BUT he can appeal any legal error made during the trial. Ex-evidence admitted that shouldn’t have been admitted, rulings made in error, prosecutorial misconduct. The list goes on & on. His only limit on appeal is trying to say he had ineffective counsel.
The judge is allowing him to prosecute himself. It’s very clear and incredibly smart.
These people ever stop to think and ask are they are clowns?
I'm going to guess, "no" lol
I think he knows what he's doing and he knows he's guilty. He's just trying to make this process as long and painful as possible for everyone.
Maggie Mendoza
He's a coward narcissist not wanting to be held accountable for his actions does it really surprise you
I'll give you ONE guess
No. But on top of that. The man knows he's going to jail.. It's not like he have anything to lose.
People like him only understand punishment. His attempt to disrupt, muddle and mock the courtroom is something that you, or I couldn’t get away with.
Putting him in jail now isn't much of a punishments when he knows he's going away.
@@kriss3d understood, but his game, or notoriety is urging others to follow.
His behavior in court (today is day 9) is continually disruptive & disrespectful. It is clear that he has no respect for the law or the court and has no problem disregarding same. He does not deserve a trial.
5 words to ending Brook's bad behavior:
You may fire when ready.
No dp in Wisconsin
Ready, Aim, FIRE!!!
Omg yes yes yes!!!!!!!
I'd rather it be "this tree looks strong enough."
@@superoldgamesaturday3277 These 4 Horses and this rope looks good. Let's go.
Judge is just going through the process so no one can say he was denied his rights. I bet by Fri he’s got an attorney and a courtroom to himself.
Why do we have to give this criminal free reign? He needs to be silenced and in jail.
He is silenced and in another room.
He will be once he is in jail.. But if he was silenced improper then he could appeal and claim. He didn't get a fair trial.
Trust me it's the ONLY reason they let him do this.
What could he possibly be shouting at the bailiffs? What makes him think they would care?
He's just trying to delay the inevitable. Him getting slashed in prison
He bin in jail so much wanne bet he sadley have more friends and fam there then outside
@@Sammy-dushi
Only takes one homie with a shank who don't like him or wants a reputation
Just remember laws and rights don’t apply to him because he doesn’t recognize them as a self proclaimed sovereign citizen. He can’t pick and choose which ones do or do not apply. They all do or none of them do. It’s that simple
Thing is. If he really meant that then he wouldn't have the rights either.
Good point!
@@kriss3d not exactly. Sovereign citizens believe that laws are based on consent of the governed, but rights are inherent. So they will assert any rights that they want, as they find convenient, but claim to not consent to any laws which they find inconvenient. It's a remarkably entitled way to live.
@@jesseihnen6897 absolutely yes. They have no grounds on law except misrepresentation and cherry picking of laws and their meaning.
@Jill Skelington His defence is also all over the place. It does seem like he attempted to either defend himself by what looks like arguing that somone held him at gunpoint in the car ( as he keeps asking if anyone saw anyone else in the car on the rear seats. Otherwise I have no idea where he's going with that. ) Or he is trying to argue that he tried to warn people by honking the horn.
This isnt going well for him. But he likely knew that.
I cant imagine where he thinks his arguments about not identifying himself as Brooks is supposed to go. The judge should either ask him what he identifies as just to clearify that. Or call him out for lying as Im VERY sure his drivers license or other ID papers has that name on it.
This seems to happen a lot with people who try to represent themselves.
He is guilty no matter who represents him, he was caught on camera
i hate theyre doing all this accomidation and patience for that man. sentence him to life and throw away the key. simple
They should stop that part, that you can represent yourself.. It's nonsense. He just wants more attention and looking for a reason to appeal one day..
GAG him and only speak to him trough a court appointed lawyer. Wasting time and money.
Removing him from the Court is most likely going to be one of his points on appeal for depriving him of the right to participate. However, since it is a problem of his own making, I don't think it's going to get any conviction overturned.
Yea that def won't work on appeal, as he does still have the right to participate from the other courtroom, can hear and see everything happening and they can unmute him when they need to instead of allowing him to speak out of turn in the courtroom.
It will all just delay the inevitable. They can retry him and then deny him the right to represent himself.
@@cariann2220 The one thing that would give me concern would be how they are handling his objections if he is muted. If the Court is filtering objections, then who determines what objection is allowed to be made?
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC thats the judge who gets to determine when objections are made correctly and when they are not. He can write on his pad and as I said if they want to ask him if he objects to something they can unmute and ask. My guess is he doesn't even understand what proper objections are and he will probably never object in a proper way since he is not a lawyer and doesn't know the laws.
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC all his objections tho, however nonsensical, are all being recorded down to keep on the record. They are not proper objections though.
In his mind diversion keeps him from having to face the facts--buys him a little time but at the end he'll still go down and receive his just reward.
I was at church whenever this happened last year and when I read about it I was just floored
He didn’t just hit them. He RAN OVER them.
This judge has the patience of Job. Good for her.
I think that's what he is trying to do get a mistrial or an appeal.
It's not working
What he's trying to do is squeegee a water covered road in a thunderstorm
@@funfact8660 True but he thinks so.
Judge must regain control of HER COURTROOM immediately or this will continue to be a complete circus.
I know I am months late but no one can regain control of the courtroom when a sovereign citizen is involved. They never stop talking. They never let anyone finish a sentence. They don't believe any court has jurisdiction over them. They don't even participate in a conversation normally, never answering questions, pretending they don't understand, and using language only they understand. The judge is in a tough spot in how to shut him up and still let him participate to avoid a mistrial.
Just read your comment. Judge Dorow did everything correctly for the families, no chance of a mistrial, over a thousand years in prison, and zero possibility of child killer Brooks winning any appeal.
An eye for an eye.
The only way an eye for an eye will work is if we legalize cruel and unusual punishment. He only has one life, and he took 6.
No DP in Wisconsin
And this years "I'm pretending I'm insane, because it will be the basis of my appeal" award goes to:
I truly believe this guy is mentally ill. he isnt playing around. certifiable
No I think he really is just that uncivilized.
Every reason the judge gives for his removal is evidence that her decision to allow self representation was made in error: "he has never filed an appropriate motion"..."he has failed to follow even the simplest of procedural requirements"...etc. etc.
Not this guy...he sucks at it 🤣
@@hanksoandso8778 she made the decision because he had not yet given her the evidence she needs to revoke his self representation. He's about to get Blandinoed. See Our Nevada Judges Revocation of Kim Blandino's right to self representation, though she will not take as long to come to the decision to revoke his right to self representation as they did. She's being very deliberate in giving him every opportunity to abide by the court rules and decorum and making a clear record. He will get his right to self representation revoked if he continues the sovereign citizen bs.
I knew the judge shouldn’t have given him the right to represent himself. Bring the lawyers back and keep him in his cell.
The problem is that he has the right to self representation. Outright denying it would lead to sanctions for the judge and for him to get a new trial. The judge is doing exactly what she needs to do. If he keeps up this behavior enough, it will give her the option to revoke his self representation.
The judge is doing her best but I think it's time to just assign him attorneys and let the trial proceed.
Every word the judge utters as reason to remove him is evidence of her improper decision to allow him to defend himself.
@@hanksoandso8778 you know what that's fair. But since sure went down this path she's going by the book but I think it's clear he's not fit to defend himself. Since he likes to play word games I wouldn't said "since you can't 'understand' then you get an attorney to do that for you".
@@hanksoandso8778 The judge has to respect his right to represent himself. He can say he doesn't "understand" anything but that's nothing more than a sovcit tactic. In fact, in his pretrial he asked questions to the judge about the things she was saying which proves he did understand what she was saying to him (I.e. "what's the relevance of that?") despite that he kept saying he didn't understand what was being said. Lastly, he has been found competent to stand trail more than once.
@@HJKampe I'll concede that those who found him competent to stand trial have opinions that matter more than mine.
As far as defending himself in court he must be competent enough to "participate in proceedings" (I think that is exact language) he is not.
Why not put him in a room with the family members of who he killed?
Let them work it out with Mr. Brooks since he's a sovereign citizen they can use his ideas of law and order?
Good idea
They could announce the date and time they are releasing him as a free man...
He had a better chance with a lawyer and him silent. He wouldn't have even been able to be silent. he woulda been interrupting his lawyers too. LMFAO
no lawyer will take cases from sovcits. not even public defenders.
He’s possibly acting insane on purpose
This is ridiculous. Just shut him up and try him in absentia
That should have never happened why do they get so many chances to hurt innocent people?
Because Biden told him to do it.
@@superoldgamesaturday3277 You're a weird one for sure
@@justthatgirl-ct4jo Biden DID tell him to do it and Brooks said that he heard Biden line about the need for justice for the kiddie diddlers that Rittenhouse as a call to action. Then again, you hate reality, so shut up, gash.
On some level he has to know what he did is indefensible and that he’s going to get a sentence where they put him in hole and he won’t see much of daylight again. This is a stall tactic or him making a mockery of the judicial system. Or both. Not helping his case either way.
There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. You are either a sovereign OR you are a citizen. A true sovereign would never run their automobile into a group of people.
That is not true. The name, sovereign citizen, came from their own group when they were formed years ago. Sovereign citizens are typically felons of some sort, typically convicted of robbery or assault.
Your statement just reiterates just how unintelligent "Sovereign citizens" are!
The fact that this clown actually has the “right” and opportunity to conduct himself like this in a courtroom literally shows the lack of progress in our judicial system. The TRUE understanding of what an American’s Right’s actually entail continue to be blurred resulting in this disrespectful and idiotic behavior. This horrible human does not deserve another day of breathing nor does he deserve any opportunity to show his asinine behavior to get the notoriety he is looking for.
I still don’t get why he hasn’t been charged with hate crimes
Why would it be a hate crime?
@@brendanmaclean3013 Are you familiar with the guy besides the early parts of the trial?
I tell ya the judge is getting some good experience on how to deal with these sovereign nuts. This will be case law in schools in the future. She is beautiful by the way
Very beautiful
Even if she revokes his right to represent himself and he gets legal council back…. He will continue to be disruptive and act out the same exact way.
If that happens, they will be put in another room and muted when others are talking so the process can move forward.
She can’t revoke his right to self representation, she made that very clear in court and made us also very clear that he could not have stand by council,
He makes a very good job of legal argument when he needs to, siting legal precedent, for his argument, and this will be his undoing for a appeal.
Why can’t he be held in contempt and thrown out. Lawyers can be held in contempt ??
The man that kidnapped my mother was thrown from the courtroom due to outbursts/bad behavior etc. He was sentenced to 210 years in prison, takes it to the Supreme and its ruled a retrial in his favor because the judge violated his right to be present at his own trial.
I am willing to bet there is more to the case you are talking about because everything the judge is doing here is appropriate. He is still present for his trial. Just over zoom. A perfectly reasonable response to his obstructionist and dilatory behavior. If he keeps it up, he can even have his self representation revoked.
This is clear evidence of our decline as modern society. Some laws need to change fast
They changing them the wrong way not to where it helps society.
So is Brooks saying he is NOT the driver, thus not guilty?
This defendant is showcasing and not taking this serious. I hope they can get a grip on this. He’s obviously delaying any effort against him.
The judge is amazing.
She has the patience of Job!
As I've said before, with or without a lawyer his freedom card is shredded and revoked.. He won't see the light of day.
If he doesn’t recognize his name, did he cash those stimulus checks? What name was on them?
I would not feel comfortable as a juor with this man having my information much less being in the same room with him ranting and raving
Why is this not being blown up by the MSM? Smh
MSM focus is on some people who trespassed on 1/6.
Uh wtf did this judge expect?! It's common knowledge these sovereign citizens pulls these bs tricks in courts yet she allows him to represent himself 🤦♀️
She has to show good faith to give him his chance. If she did not she would be criticized for that.
She still has to create the written record of it all so his conviction won’t be overturned. She knows perfectly well it’s a clown show.
She has to at least give him a opportunity because it's his constitutional right even though he wants to try to say he's a sovereign citizen.
Let him bury himself.
Every reason the judge gives for his removal is evidence that her decision to allow self representation was done in error:
"He has NEVER filed an appropriate motion"..."He has failed to follow the SIMPLEST of procedural requirements"...etc. etc.
Why is the judge dismissing the fact he’s been a schizophrenic his whole life? Tax $ shouldn’t be wasted on this. What’s her agenda? He should be in a criminally insane institution with no trial.
She never dismissed that... In fact, Brooks dropped his defense of not guilty by insanity. He did that to himself. Plus, he has been found competent to stand trial more than once from psych evaluations.
4 doctors disagree. All 4 found his only diagnosis’s are personality disorders. No psychotic symptoms, not even a mood disorder. Personality disorders can’t be treated with medication.
I love how he puts him in “time out”. 😂😂
The DEATH PENALTY Is Crying Out For JUSTICE ⚖️
Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron.
Exactly! You cannot be both sovereign and a citizen. 🤣🤦🏼♂️
Am I still shadowbanned for saying he committed a hate crime or nah?
It was definitely a hate crime. This was planned. 🙏🏾
Whoever replied to this is definitely shadowbanned bc I don't see your comment. But maybe this means I'm out of censorship jail now.
So I'll reiterate: Darrell Brooks Jr did what he did out of anti-hwite hatred, payback for the Rittenhouse acquittal and support for Bl*ck nationalist hate groups. This can clearly be deduced from his social media pages that the media is purposely staying silent on.
I don't know, why do you think that? It might be too difficult to prove.
@@melistasy I'm not saying it would be easy to prove, but I've been following the case from the minute it happened and they declared it not a hate crime BEFORE it was even investigated. They never even attempted to connect the dots. And the media has been extremely deliberate with their wording. I know you know that if a hwite man intentionally drove through a crowd of blck people after writing about wanting to target them specifically, this would have been treated a LOT different.
Nope!
Take him out back. You know.
...for lunch...
Even with lawyers, he was still going to be convicted, and never getting out of prison!!
Darrell's mother claims he has bipolar disorder and is not given his meds in jail and when he gets angry and defiant he is one step away from angry outburst throwing chairs and breaking things. She begged judge not to allow him to represent himself.
His speech and manner he is uneducated gangsta behavior he got used to bullying people family etc to get his way that's clear. He is not educated enough to represent himself. I'd be surprised if he can read and write at ,6th grade level. Proclaiming Sovereign citizen means he doesn't recognize courts authority nor his legal birth name.
I understand what his mother said. However, 4 doctors evaluated him & ALL 4 diagnosed Darrell with personality disorders (not a mood disorder like bipolar d/o). Personality disorders can’t be treated with medication.
Due process is not needed in this case
He is the only one to blame for the position he’s in
🙏 for all
One of the few instances where I wish we could just discard a criminal without any fuss.
Maybe the current SCOTUS will make that available for certain cases... like this one, for example!!!
@@HardRockMaster7577 Yeah, and there will be mountains made of ice cream and big-breasted women everywhere.
@@The_Cadaver Sounds like a Snoop Dog/Katy Perry collaboration!!!
Why is she allowing him to rep himself? He's stated clearly that he understands nothing and DEMONSTRATED is incompetent regarding basic court procedure.
The level for self representation is that he understands the process and is able to speak clearly.
He can say he doesn't understand anything but that's nothing more than a sovcit tactic. Lots of sovereign citizens have tried to do that to no avail.
I’d pay good money to hear all that was said in the second courtroom every time he was in there. You know he made a complete and bigger fool out of himself over there. I’m sure many many people would enjoy hearing those times.
So , 752 consecutive years later.....😂🤣😂
Plus six consecutive life sentences. I think it would be "fair to say" that we've seen the last of Darrell Brooks. Although we did get to see him rolled into a courtroom in Milwaukee strapped to a giant stroller, so that was kinda fun.
Where is the actual video of the court proceedings
The disrespect is astounding......not for the court! For the people he has murdered.....what a slug.....
😂 Sovereign Citizens which he discovered in his jailhouse law degree. Tell him no Sovereign Citizens wins any case in any court in any state.
closest they get to a "win" is charges reduced or a plea deal to just shut'em up.
He also discovered those Hell's Angels locked up down from his jail cell, have him as marked and tainted goods as well
@@johnbubba1143 let’s hope not, other pro se cases in the last few years, ended up with life sentences. Ronnie ONeel was one of the most outrageous pro se I’ve ever seen. All of them eventually get tired of not knowing the law and usually request law assistance. Darrell is unique by using the Sovereign Citizen.
@@maddieadams75 too be fair I was referring to sovtards who play that nonsense about traffic tickets or trespassing charges. Lesser crimes and traffic tickets.
I suppose I shoulda worded it better. I do apologize.
As for this POS, he's grasping at any straw he can to try and avoid consequences.
I've been wondering. has there been any defendent that represents themselves without a counsel, ever win a case??
Yes. Definitely. It’s rare for sure. But it has happened.
This is just sad, the man is not healthy in his mind and he is slowly digging his own grave.
Good, he deserves to suffer, he's evil.
Not exactly what I would call sad, this man slaughtered 6 people including an 8 year old. I say we see how far he can dig.
Just like Biden, who egged this on.
@@superoldgamesaturday3277 “nice weather today” “grumble grumble Biden grumble grumble”
@@brendanmaclean3013 Biden DID egg on Brooks to murder these people and even Brooks said "I listened to Biden loud and clear." The truth hurts; cry harder, perhaps when you're Brooks' bottom at your next conjugal visit with him.
Who gives a flying crap that his attorneys are women? COMPETENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
If you blame men for this too you can play the feminist angle here as well
You almost got it.
I don’t think he should represent himself
I wonder whether the judge should have made an exception to provide standby council to help to move these proceedings along.
If this guy continues as he's been doing, the judge and the jurors are all going to wind up with PTSD from prolonged exposure to this level of stupidity. I pity all involved.
Can Judge Judy take over this trial? She would be done in 10 minutes with this clown.
Wow who didn't see this coming! Why would this judge make herself look incompetent by giving this deranged lunatic the freedom to make a mockery of her court room in the first place?
Because it’s his constitutional right and if she denied him his rights it would be a mistrial and this guy could kill again
This guy has proven himself a pure coward on every level...If he refuses to follow the rule of law then give him the type of justice you see happen in places with no law...There are many places where he would have been dragged from the car and his skull caved in with whatever the crowd had to hand until someone turns up with the petrol and lighter,,
He seems to have an idea of what he's talking about...when they let him talk.
BAR FACTS
British Accreditation Registry
British Accreditation Registry is one of the topics in focus at Global Oneness.
A bar association is a professional body of lawyers who, in some jurisdictions, are responsible for
the regulation of the legal profession.
In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the "bar association" comprises lawyers who are qualified
as barristers or advocates (collectively known as "the bar", or "members of the bar"), while the
"law society" comprises solicitors.
Bar association - One Language
In the law, the bar is also known as the community of persons engaged in the practice of law
("members of the bar").
In the United States, some state bar associations are operated by their respective state
governments which make membership in their state's bar association a requirement to practice
before that state's courts; such states are said to have a "mandatory" or "integrated bar".
Membership in such associations is synonymous to being admitted to the bar or being licensed
to practice law in that state or being admitted to practice before the courts of that state.
"PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE?"
Attorneys are "Officers of the Court" (direct "conflict of interest", and attorneys are absolutely
"BAR"red from challenging the jurisdiction of the court) and as such they have sworn to uphold
the law as it exists, and as they have been taught.
Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails: one of which separated the judge's bench
from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged
in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others.
Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be
"called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of
the judges as "barristers".
British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles
Anyone whose interest is at stake in a courtroom controversy is permitted to bring his or her
case before the bar, i.e., to pass from the public gallery into that part of the room within the bar
to present evidence and legal argument.
Courtrooms in every nation have a bar of some form, barring the public who have no interest in
the outcome of controversies from interfering with those whose future depends on what is
decided from the bench as a result of what is presented (decently and in order) from within the
bar.
In the past, British lawyers (solicitors) were the only people that could hire a barrister (someone
allowed to argue cases before the bar) to represent their client in court.
Sick and Tired of Government Corruption of this Republic
He is also sick and tired of lawyers being given special status when the truth is that any attorney
who has been accepted into the BAR has become part of a foreign organization, the British
Accreditation Registry.
Let's examine this - British Accreditation Registry, the BAR to which lawyers pass a test for and
seemingly are proud of.
In fact, to make it perfectly clear, the writer considers 99.9 percent of lawyers as complete
waste in regards to the administration of justice and not worthy to set foot in a place that is to
be guided by reason and common sense.
PVA - Company Profile
The British Accreditation Bureau runs The Consultant Register, where Paul is a 'Certified
Practitioner' (registration number SAC 1130).
In contrast, the British Accreditation Bureau's Consultant Register enables clients to match their
exact requirements with a shortlist of consultants who are accredited and have a proven track
record.
He is also ranked as an "Expert Advisor", the British Accreditation Bureau's criteria for which are:
"A well known figure in his or her area of expertise with outstanding qualifications".
Silent Conquest
Therefore, BAR attorneys cannot be classed higher than the sovereign and are, in fact, removed
as a sovereign since they have accepted allegiance with other than the people.
The BAR and those associated with it are non-entities as far as the Constitution and the
authority of the sovereign are concerned.
Thus, we may conclude that the allegiance of BAR attorneys is not to the law established by the
Constitution and, therefore, not to the sovereign.
LawyerComments
The only exceptions are those lawyers who for some reason might also be a member of some
British bar association, but I have never met such a lawyer.
But the client can file a complaint with the bar association in that jurisdiction and the bar may
discipline the lawyer in the form of a suspension, disbarment, etc. That's it.
British Accreditation Registry, which is the figment of somebody's imagination.
BAR
Attorneys at law are given the title of 'Esquire' through the BAR, a title meaning 'Shield Bearer';
they carry this shield for the 'Crown of the City of London'.
Using this rational, when the family law section of the Alabama Bar meets in Pensacola during
the summer for both vacation and work, it must be a part of the Florida Bar.
TBA contends that the International Bar Association (which incidentally was created after WWII)
is "physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London" and within the confines of
the Inns.
Victory over IRS in Florida - My title [Free Republic]
BAR is an acronym for 'British Accreditation Regency' which forms individual state bars in the
various states in Amerika.
The "bar" is literally the wooden railing which separates the spectator section of the courtroom
from the front section where the judge and lawyers (those 'admitted to the bar') sit.
Ask an attorney about the BAR oath; it specifies the 1st loyalty is to the court, the 2nd to the
State.
Here is an interesting legal issue for you to ponder
International Bar Association, the only Bar association in the world, headquartered right in good
old London town and under his own direct control, but with operations established in the
This missing 13th Amendment suppressed and even stopped the forming or continued existence
of any Bar association for over four decades, from 1822 to 1867, and evidence of its existence
has been found in over 10 different states and territories throughout the United States.
And an Amendment that deliberately targeted attorneys who were members of the Bar
association, to prevent Bar members from holding any public office, - thereby preventing
attorneys from passing legislation that would most assuredly serve the greedy and nefarious
interests of ?
Missing 13th Amendment?
But the battle by these heirs of knighthood this time was forged against good and not evil, for
this new thing that the People in America were calling ‘freedom’ was a dangerous consideration
for a King.
The International Bar Association was alive and well in America.
“The Bar was England’s own British Accreditation Registry, its members were considered to be
nobles -- being above the common person, and all lawyers or attorneys had to belong to it, and
they were under the will of the King, and the Bank of England.
Missing 13th Amendment?
But the battle by these heirs of knighthood this time was forged against good and not evil, for
this new thing that the People in America were calling ‘freedom’ was a dangerous consideration
for a King.
“The Bar was England’s own British Accreditation Registry, its members were considered to be
nobles -- being above the common person, and all lawyers or attorneys had to belong to it, and
they were under the will of the King, and the Bank of England.
And if there was any opposition to his plan, he might just cause another WAR to maintain his
position for control of the United States.
IFTS Members
Some government departments have delegated authority from the Controller of HMSO to
license the re-use of the Crown copyright material which they originate.
IFTS Accreditation is used as the method of regulating decisions about the licensing of Crown
copyright information by those bodies.
Non-Crown bodies can become accredited to the IFTS, although their copyright material is not
Crown copyright and is not vested in the Controller of HMSO.
A better plea is "Plea in Bar"; however, one must know proper proceed well, to make this one really
stick.
To appear 'Pro Se' or 'Pro' anything is to accept a temporary appoint to the BAR, a acronym
{British AristocRATic Regency or British Accreditation Registry}.
The Florida Bar as an example has 70,000 members; however, less than 2,800 members are
Certified as Competent.
Three Features of a Kangaroo Court
Court proceedings that lack the due process protections people associate with courts of law have earned the name “kangaroo court.” The term has been in use since at least the 19th century, but it is difficult to pinpoint an exact source for it or to determine why its name includes a reference to an animal native to Australia.
As a general rule, a kangaroo court is any proceeding that attempts to imitate a fair trial or hearing without the usual due process safeguards including the right to call witnesses, the right to confront your accuser and a hearing before a fair and impartial judge. Kangaroo court proceedings are usually a sham carried out without legal authority in which the outcome has been predetermined without regard to the evidence or to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Referring to something as a kangaroo court usually carries with it a negative inference because of the manner in which they are conducted. Here are three features of a kangaroo court that set it apart from normally accepted principles of fairness and justice.
Applying laws retroactively
Since the outcome of a kangaroo court is a foregone conclusion, one method of ensuring that a person will be found guilty is to create laws and apply them to past behavior. Ex post facto laws criminalize past conduct that was not illegal when it was performed. The benefit of ex post facto laws to those conducting a kangaroo court is that a conviction is assured.
Ex post facto laws are a violation of the U.S. Constitution. They take away a person’s right to know in advance the type of conduct that, if performed, will violate a state or federal criminal law. Removal of this most basic due process right is a characteristic of a kangaroo court.
Lack of impartial judges
Because the outcome is predetermined before any evidence is presented, kangaroo court proceedings are presided over by a judge or panel of judges that is partial toward the prosecution. Judges during a trial in a kangaroo court usually limit or obstruct efforts by the accused to present evidence or witnesses favorable to the defense while placing almost no restrictions on the evidence prosecutors are allowed to present.
The fact that the judge in a kangaroo court is part of the sham process, the punishment inflicted upon the defendant generally exceeds what might normally be justified based upon the conduct of which the defendant was accused and convicted. Harsh and severe sentences are common in a kangaroo court.
Absence of the most basic constitutional rights
The right against self-incrimination, the right to cross examine witnesses and the presumption of innocence are lacking in a typical kangaroo court. Constitutional safeguards would stand in the way of a kangaroo court reaching its predetermined result. In some instances, limited cross examination of witnesses and other fundamental due process rights might be allowed to the defendant to conceal the true nature of the kangaroo court.
The Elizabeth Holmes “misconduct” sounds like a bunch of BS.
After a attack like the one he did and then to come in to play games. He is getting his 5 seconds of fam and to make a mockery of the law
He's already a Dead Man Walking
Gather your torches and pitchforks.
He shoiuldn't allowed to defend himself. He's totally incompetent.
You forgot to put ALLEGEDLY
He can represent himself? Oh, oh! Looks like another trial of “THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW!!!”
Ah, Ronnie O'Neal! I'm sure you're right.
god i hope not. my liver is still healing from the " the evidence will show" drinking game.
@@johnbubba1143 😂
He'll get "the Dahmer" treatment in jail....................................
Ironically both in Milwaukee
It’s the Wisconsin way long drawn out and tedious.🤦🏾
What a joke.
Shut him up & lock him up!
Dancing on the graves of the victims?
He needs to be under the jail. He didn't care what he did.
He's yelling and no can hear the lunatic
When someone murders and hurts another their rights should automatically be removed
That happens after conviction and to an extent, after arrest. It can't happen all at once because of due process guaranteed by the constitution.
His actions indicate he is a terrorist and an anarchist. He has no country. Off to GOTMO for processing...
Let's all hope this guy doesn't get the same verdict Nicholas Cruz got.
I really hope no one will have to listen to his shenanigans any more. He can’t represent himself! This is ridiculous! The court shouldn’t waste any more time!
The court needs to make a record before his right to self representation is revoked. That way he has one less appealable issue. When the court makes the record clear, then revokes his right to self representation, and assigns an attorney to represent him, he won't be able to claim that he wasn't allowed to represent himself and that he had ineffective counsel, because he fired two very good attorneys right off the bat.